2019-20 Roster Thread VIII

[CanadianFlyer88]

Continue.

Click to read more...

 

[Juicy Pop]

Is there any reason to suspect that a Hayes deal is done but information is being withheld until a specific date? End of the Cup, Draft, etc.?

 

[Random Forest]

There is nothing wrong with trading the 11th overall pick.

There's a time cost with picks. Time is a resource too, and waiting for picks and prospects to develop into real talent is a drain on time. All else being equal, having $1,000 today is better than having $1,000 in five years.

Then there's also the general risk of uncertain assets. All else being equal, having a guaranteed $500 is better than having a 40% chance of $1,000 and a 60% chance of having $0.

Combine those two factors and there is no reason to to suggest trading the pick is inherently shortsighted. Being excessively shortsighted isn't good, but it's not like being excessively longsighted is any less of a vice. That's just as dumb.

 

[deadhead]

People aren't saying trading the pick is shortsighted, trading the pick for a one year rental is shortsighted.

The extension has little value if it has to be made at a UFA premium rate (Trouba for example, seems to want to be paid as a #1 defenseman, not a 1st pair defenseman, 1-2 M more per year, and there is no reason to think he'd give the Flyers a discount).

 

[Random Forest]

People aren't saying trading the pick is shortsighted, trading the pick for a one year rental is shortsighted.

The extension has little value if it has to be made at a UFA premium rate (Trouba for example, seems to want to be paid as a #1 defenseman, not a 1st pair defenseman, 1-2 M more per year, and there is no reason to think he'd give the Flyers a discount).

Sure, trading for a player with one year remaining on a contract is probably shortsighted.

But keeping the pick and waiting five years for the player to *maybe* develop into an impact player when you already have the best young prospect pool in the league can be considered far-sighted. I don't see how that's inherently preferable to excessive shortsightedness.

 

[Rebels57]

Sure, trading for a player with one year remaining on a contract is probably shortsighted.

But keeping the pick and waiting five years for the player to *maybe* develop into an impact player when you already have the best young prospect pool in the league can be considered far-sighted. I don't see how that's inherently preferable to excessive shortsightedness.

Nope. If we trade that pick, we are f***ed forever. Fold the organization.

 

[The Madrigal]

There is nothing wrong with trading the 11th overall pick.

There's a time cost with picks. Time is a resource too, and waiting for picks and prospects to develop into real talent is a drain on time. All else being equal, having $1,000 today is better than having $1,000 in five years.

Then there's also the general risk of uncertain assets. All else being equal, having a guaranteed $500 is better than having a 40% chance of $1,000 and a 60% chance of having $0.

Combine those two factors and there is no reason to to suggest trading the pick is inherently shortsighted. Being excessively shortsighted isn't good, but it's not like being excessively longsighted is any less of a vice. That's just as dumb.

Random Forest is dropping knowledge.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Framing the discussion around the player picked with 11 versus a current NHLer makes no sense.

It's 11 plus what you do with the cap space you would give to the player you would be acquiring. Part of the time axis is cap space that cannot roll over.

 

[flyersfan187]

If they trade the 11th overall + for a Trouba type D then that will spell the end of either Myers or Ghost here once the ED comes. I expect Myers will take a big jump next season under AV and he is right handed so that would mean that Ghost would probably be either traded before the ED or Seattle would take him.

I still want EK but if he doesn't sign I'd rather go after Stralman and keep the 11th overall. If they do indeed sign Hayes and Stralman then that would make the Flyers strong down the middle plus have options at D with Provy/Sanheim/Ghost/Myers/Stralman/Gudas/Morin/A Mac/Hagg is plenty to go into the season and see how they go under AV. These two small moves could make this team miles better then last year, especially with the new coaching staff.

 

[The Madrigal]

Framing the discussion around the player picked with 11 versus a current NHLer makes no sense.

It's 11 plus what you do with the cap space you would give to the player you would be acquiring. Part of the time axis is cap space that cannot roll over.

That's a far bigger factor though when a team has limited cap space. The Flyers don't have that problem. With one of the deepest prospects pools in the league and plenty of cap space they are in a position where trading the 11th overall pick makes some sense.

 

[Striiker]

There is nothing wrong with trading the 11th overall pick.

There's a time cost with picks. Time is a resource too, and waiting for picks and prospects to develop into real talent is a drain on time. All else being equal, having $1,000 today is better than having $1,000 in five years.

Then there's also the general risk of uncertain assets. All else being equal, having a guaranteed $500 is better than having a 40% chance of $1,000 and a 60% chance of having $0.

Combine those two factors and there is no reason to to suggest trading the pick is inherently shortsighted. Being excessively shortsighted isn't good, but it's not like being excessively longsighted is any less of a vice. That's just as dumb.

Sure, trading for a player with one year remaining on a contract is probably shortsighted.

But keeping the pick and waiting five years for the player to *maybe* develop into an impact player when you already have the best young prospect pool in the league can be considered far-sighted. I don't see how that's inherently preferable to excessive shortsightedness.

Five years? More like three or less. This is 11th overall... not late 20s... and even late 20s we rarely wait that long.

And it's shortsighted in the sense that they'd be trading a top asset to fill a "hole" they don't even know exists. It's very likely we have everything we need already in the organization, but they can't see past what happened last year or into the future as what they project to be. Just like when people ignorantly point to what happened last year without the ultra-important context of the coaching and goaltending problems. Suddenly Hakstol gets fired and people (including the people who hated him most) have forgotten the impact he had on this team and the players... especially young ones.

If next year goes by and there isn't a large change, as everyone should be expecting, THEN you make moves.

And especially on here, the suggestions to trade the pick are shortsighted. People are so focused on next year that they're perfectly fine hurting everything after that.

 

[The Madrigal]

Five years? More like three or less. This is 11th overall... not late 20s... and even late 20s we rarely wait that long.

Former 11th overall pick of the Flyers, Six years and still waiting.....

 

[hatcher]

Still takes years for draft picks to become all around good players. Our young players haven't even scratched the surface yet. We need NHL players now not kids.

 

[Random Forest]

Five years? More like three or less. This is 11th overall... not late 20s... and even late 20s we rarely wait that long.

Huh? To become an impact player? First, it's hardly a guarantee that the pick becomes an impact player *at all*.

Konecny took four, and he's arguably still not a true impact player yet. Sanheim took five. Morin never got there.

The 11th overall pick isn't *that* valuable to a team that is already choking on prospects. Again, there's a time cost and an uncertainty cost involved here. For a team that has an immense amount of young talent, I see no reason to bear those costs if a reasonable opportunity presents itself to improve the NHL roster.

And it's shortsighted in the sense that they'd be trading a top asset to fill a "hole" they don't even know exists. It's very likely we have everything we need already in the organization, but they can't see past what happened last year or into the future as what they project to be. Just like when people ignorantly point to what happened last year without the ultra-important context of the coaching and goaltending problems. Suddenly Hakstol gets fired and people (including the people who hated him most) have forgotten the impact he had on this team and the players... especially young ones.

If next year goes by and there isn't a large change, as everyone should be expecting, THEN you make moves.

And especially on here, the suggestions to trade the pick are shortsighted. People are so focused on next year that they're perfectly fine hurting everything after that.

Hurting everything after that? By trading a pick? In what way? You can trade the pick and still have youthful talent coming out the ass.

It's always "next year we can make moves", but then every time next year comes we hear "it's shortsighted to trade picks and prospects". OK. We say next year *every damn year*. You have to cash in your chips eventually instead of just staring at them and fapping to all that sexy potential.

If these supposed holes didn't exist, we'd be a good team already. Full stop. We're not. There are gaps and places to improve, and we have a ton of young assets as it is. We can afford to cash in on some of those long-term assets to become a good team *right now* (ie, NOT "next year").

It's just straight up farsightedness. Ignoring what's in front of your face *right now* in favor of some future that is always a year away. It's a losers mentality. There's no law that says a team must mortgage its future competitiveness (or as you say "hurting everything after" this year) in order to be good right now. We can do both. That's what competent management means.

 

[Striiker]

Former 11th overall pick of the Flyers, Six years and still waiting.....

Do you expect them to reach for a lanky 6'7'' defensemen this year?

Me neither.

I also like that you had to ignore important context with him, like that he was injured and also should have been on the team YEARS ago, to even make this terrible attempt at a point.

 

[The Madrigal]

Still takes years for draft picks to become all around good players. Our young players haven't even scratched the surface yet. We need NHL players now not kids.

Exactly.

Even IF the 11th overall pick ends up working out. You have to think that they wouldn't make their NHL debut until some time in the 2021-2022 season. It's probably another year or two before they become an impact player. That's IF the player works out at all.

I would prefer to keep the pick, but if they end up trading it as part of a package to get a legit top pairing D I'm not going to lose any sleep over it and it makes a lot of sense for the organization to make a move such as this. Of course, most of the same people who would flip out if the Flyers ended up signing Tyler Myers, will end up flipping out if they move the pick.

 

[hatcher]

Huh? To become an impact player? First, it's hardly a guarantee that the pick becomes an impact player *at all*.

Konecny took four, and he's arguably still not a true impact player yet. Sanheim took five. Morin never got there.

The 11th overall pick isn't *that* valuable to a team that is already choking on prospects. Again, there's a time cost and an uncertainty cost involved here. For a team that has an immense amount of young talent, I see no reason to bear those costs if a reasonable opportunity presents itself to improve the NHL roster.



Hurting everything after that? By trading a pick? In what way? You can trade the pick and still have youthful talent coming out the ass.

It's always "next year we can make moves", but then every time next year comes we hear "it's shortsighted to trade picks and prospects". OK. We say next year *every damn year*. You have to cash in your chips eventually instead of just staring at them and fapping to all that sexy potential.

If these supposed holes didn't exist, we'd be a good team already. Full stop. We're not. There are gaps and places to improve, and we have a ton of young assets as it is. We can afford to cash in on some of those long-term assets to become a good team *right now* (ie, NOT "next year").

It's just straight up farsightedness. Ignoring what's in front of your face *right now* in favor of some future that is always a year away. It's a losers mentality. There's no law that says a team must mortgage its future competitiveness (or as you say "hurting everything after" this year) in order to be good right now. We can do both. That's what competent management means.

It's time to start moving into a wing culture not the country club the flyers become.

 

[hatcher]

Exactly.

Even IF the 11th overall pick ends up working out. You have to think that they wouldn't make their NHL debut until some time in the 2021-2022 season. It's probably another year or two before they become an impact player. That's IF the player works out at all.

I would prefer to keep the pick, but if they end up trading it as part of a package to get a legit top pairing D I'm not going to lose any sleep over it and it makes a lot of sense for the organization to make a move such as this. Of course, most of the same people who would flip out if the Flyers ended up signing Tyler Myers, will end up flipping out if they move the pick.

This team has to start being a force starting next year. If this team with additions are average they better sucking nuke it.

 

[Random Forest]

Do you expect them to reach for a lanky 6'7'' defensemen this year?

Me neither.

I also like that you had to ignore important context with him, like that he was injured and also should have been on the team YEARS ago, to even make this terrible attempt at a point.

It's not a terrible point. Lots of players bust. There's a very real chance that who we take at 11 this year is a bust or disappointment. Sure, they could be our next franchise player too, but there are risks involved with draft picks. Certainty is important, just like potential is important.

Moderation matters. Of course you don't trade all your picks. But when you've been drafting 8-9 times per year and collecting the best prospect pool in the NHL like the Flyers have over the past five years, then you can afford to change your risk exposure by cashing in on some certainty right now.

 

[deadhead]

You can get good NHL players (Palmieri for example, Coyle) without breaking the bank.
We have plenty of assets, #41, next year's #1 (top 10 protected), Laughton, Hartman, Hagg, Morin, 2nd tier prospects.
And we have the cap room to take bad contracts (1-2 year duration) back.
And the money to play in free agency.

That's more than enough ammo for a good GM to add 3-4 solid veterans on short-term deals to buy time for kids to grow up (and if they lose their jobs, recoup some assets at the TDL).

 

[Striiker]

Huh? To become an impact player? First, it's hardly a guarantee that the pick becomes an impact player *at all*.

Konecny took four, and he's arguably still not a true impact player yet. Sanheim took five. Morin never got there.

The 11th overall pick isn't *that* valuable to a team that is already choking on prospects. Again, there's a time cost and an uncertainty cost involved here. For a team that has an immense amount of young talent, I see no reason to bear those costs if a reasonable opportunity presents itself to improve the NHL roster.

My mistake, I misread what you said and thought you meant 5 years until they're on the team.

I'd also don't think we're choking on prospects at all. After Frost and Farabee is pretty barren when it comes to high potential players, with multiple lesser guys maybe not even wanting to sign.

Hurting everything after that? By trading a pick? In what way? You can trade the pick and still have youthful talent coming out the ass

Multiple times people who are suggesting to trade the pick have said something along the lines of "you can't be afraid to make the team better next year just because it might hurt in 5 years", which I think is a terrible mentality. They're so hyper-focused on next year that they're actively ignoring the future impact of the potential moves.

It's always "next year we can make moves", but then every time next year comes we hear "it's shortsighted to trade picks and prospects". OK. We say next year *every damn year*. You have to cash in your chips eventually instead of just staring at them and fapping to all that sexy potential.

Not sure how to even respond to this because it's not something I've said or suggested. You're responding to something I said with annoyance about things NOT said by me...

We absolutely can and should make moves if they improve the team both now and in the future... just not terrible ones like I keep seeing suggested on here.

If these supposed holes didn't exist, we'd be a good team already. Full stop. We're not. There are gaps and places to improve, and we have a ton of young assets as it is. We can afford to cash in on some of those long-term assets to become a good team *right now* (ie, NOT "next year").

This is exactly what I said about missing the massively important context of last years coaching and goaltending. THAT is why we weren't a good team last year. THAT is why we weren't in the playoffs. THAT is what is tricking people into thinking the roster is worse than it actually is.

It's just straight up farsightedness. Ignoring what's in front of your face *right now* in favor of some future that is always a year away. It's a losers mentality. There's no law that says a team must mortgage its future competitiveness (or as you say "hurting everything after" this year) in order to be good right now. We can do both. That's what competent management means.

Again, I'm all for moves the help both now and in the future. Most of the trades suggested on here don't do that and I don't trust our current management to come up with much better.

If we can trade the 11th for a legit impact player, obviously do it. I just don't see that realistically happening. That's my problem here.

 

[deadhead]

Huh? To become an impact player? First, it's hardly a guarantee that the pick becomes an impact player *at all*.

Konecny took four, and he's arguably still not a true impact player yet. Sanheim took five. Morin never got there.

The 11th overall pick isn't *that* valuable to a team that is already choking on prospects. Again, there's a time cost and an uncertainty cost involved here. For a team that has an immense amount of young talent, I see no reason to bear those costs if a reasonable opportunity presents itself to improve the NHL roster.

There are prospects and then there are prospects.
Most of our prospects are going to be middle six or bottom six forwards, that's the way of the world.

TK had an impact his second season, is he elite? No. But neither are most of the trade targets people suggest.
Trouba is a #2 D-man, he's not elite.
Spurgeon is a top defensive defenseman, but he's not elite.
There are only two elite free agents, EK and Panarin. Duchene is not elite.

You either develop elite players, or trade for them before they become elite, because elite players rarely hit the market at their career peak, and when they do, the odds are against you getting one (b/c they go where ever they want to go).

 

[Starat327]

It takes years for draft picks to have an impact!

Queue footage for Provorov, Konecny, Couturier, .....

 

[Striiker]

It's not a terrible point. Lots of players bust. There's a very real chance that who we take at 11 this year is a bust or disappointment. Sure, they could be our next franchise player too, but there are risks involved with draft picks. Certainty is important, just like potential is important.

Moderation matters. Of course you don't trade all your picks. But when you've been drafting 8-9 times per year and collecting the best prospect pool in the NHL like the Flyers have over the past five years, then you can afford to change your risk exposure by cashing in on some certainty right now.

A one player sample size means exactly nothing. As ridiculous as saying the 78th pick is ultra-valuable because of Gostisbehere.

Of course there's a chance the player will disappoint... there's risk with literally everything in sports. A FA signing could bust, same as a player added in a trade. It's also typically the only way you find legit star players, outside of the rare instance in FA or trade.

Personally, I think it's worth the risk, so I value the pick.

 

[TCTC]

It takes years for draft picks to have an impact!

Queue footage for Provorov, Konecny, Couturier, .....

For every Provorov there is a Zacha, for every Konecny there is a Roslovic, and for every Couturier there is a Strome.
Sometimes you're lucky and sometimes not.

Flyers overall have done a good job in the first round. But they also picked Morin, Rubtsov, O'Brien, and Laughton.
If there's a player availabe on the market who will make us better, I'll prefer that over a draft pick who could make us better someday.