Prospect Info: Flyers actual 2013 draft rankings

[Redpath]

Then wait until the 4th round, where there is minimal NHL talent.

Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I've already answered your question a few times. I think they usual thing happened: they saw a goon and they overvalued him, like they have for years and years. They made a mistake. It's that simple.

Ok and then this is where I say you have no real basis for your claims of "poor asset management" in relation to this pick. You are saying they overvalued him based on scouting rankings that you have seen. Those rankings are not the same as the rankings of the teams in the NHL. They may be close in some respects, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that every team in the NHL has several players on their list ranked WAY above where anyone else does and way above where they "should" be. That's why there are all-stars and HOFers and the like picked in the later rounds. I'm not saying Ghoul will be a HOFer, obviously, and I have been agreeing that I don't like the pick, but I just don't see how you can call it poor asset management when it is two months after the draft and you have little knowledge of him and little knowledge of the alternatives (outside of a couple of lists and youtube clips you have read).

That's the problem...not that they determined he sucked and drafted him anyways; I don't know where you're getting that garbage. The problem is that, by all sources available to us, from the pre-draft guides put together by professional scouts to Goul himself, there was no good reason to take him in the 3rd round. As I've said, it's indicative of a flawed mindset.

See above. Though I would add that the Flyers say he wouldn't have been available later. I know you don't believe it for some reason, but that is what they are saying. And once again you are baseless claiming that there really were no teams interested.

Oh, and since they compare him to Rinaldo...let's see where Rinaldo was drafted: 178th. So...they see a guy with his upside and instead of waiting until the 5th or 6th round, they take him immediately. They choked.

Hell, eyeballing their stats it looks like Goul even produces at about the same rate Rinaldo did. So it's not like he's even a great improvement on him.

Comparing a drafted player to an NHL player is not saying they should have been drafted in the same place. Although I am sure you would like to skew it that way, Homer wasn't saying he thought Ghoul was a sixth round talent. He is saying he thinks Ghoul could be an effective pest-type player in the NHL. For instance, if a prospect was called Wayne Simmonds 2.0, I don't think that means he is a third round pick. I think that means he will be a solid top nine forward. If you pick him in the first, second, third, fourth, or whenever, if he is Wayne Simmonds 2.0, all you are talking about is his NHL ability, not his draft position.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.

What, that the Flyers said that? I mean...of course they will. They're not going to say "yeah, we thought we could get him later but drafted him early on just because."

 

[Beef Invictus]

DFF: Do you deny that the Flyers have a long history of overrating and overvaluing goon-type players? Do you deny that such a bias could affect how they view such players in the draft?

Because, that's pretty much the whole issue here. The Flyers' continued love of goons, even when better talent is available.

 

[Redpath]

What, that the Flyers said that? I mean...of course they will. They're not going to say "yeah, we thought we could get him later but drafted him early on just because."

So that means that not even a single other team was considering taking Ghoul in the 4th, just because the Flyers said that there was interest?

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Ghoul pick. Like many others, I would have much preferred picking Lodge, Subban, or Bjorkstrand. That being said, clearly the Flyers think Ghoul has a better shot at making the NHL, albeit in a limited roll.

 

[Beef Invictus]

So that means that not even a single other team was considering taking Ghoul in the 4th, just because the Flyers said that there was interest?

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Ghoul pick. Like many others, I would have much preferred picking Lodge, Subban, or Bjorkstrand. That being said, clearly the Flyers think Ghoul has a better shot at making the NHL, albeit in a limited roll.

No, I just put zero stock in what they're saying either way. Too biased of a source.

What I know is that the Flyers have a long history of overvaluing goons who end up having no impact or minimal impact. What we have here is the Flyers taking a goon 100 picks before he was expected to go. Seems to fit the pattern, and seems to have very high potential to be a wasted pick.

I'm sure the Flyers were pretty pumped for Klotz, too.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

DFF: Do you deny that the Flyers have a long history of overrating and overvaluing goon-type players? Do you deny that such a bias could affect how they view such players in the draft?

Because, that's pretty much the whole issue here. The Flyers' continued love of goons, even when better talent is available.

I don't necessarily think they "overvalue" goons. I think whenever the Flyers do anything related to a goon people come at the Flyers for being too goon-happy. The Flyers gave Jody Shelley too much money and for too many years. That's about as far as their "overvaluing" goons as far as I can see, unless four draft picks in the last six years (Klotz (3), Rinaldo (6), Mathers (7), and Ghoul (3)) is the proof you are talking about as well.

You have to realize in all of this that I am not saying that I think Ghoul is a great pick or that because the Flyers say so he will be worth it. All I am saying is that I simply don't understand the uproar about this kid. Everyone is whining about it without knowing much of anything about Ghoul or the alternatives, or his availability post-draft. I wanted them to pick Kurtis Gabriel who went less than 10 picks later to MN. Why? Because he was a big body on the wing that from what I understand is a solid two-way forward. I never saw him play. I never saw the other guys you would have picked play. I read their names off of lists and read about random ones. They didn't pick him and they went with a goon. If someone between Ghoul and Amorosa becomes a superstar, then talk about how it was poo asset management. But if no one does and Ghoul is the next Rinaldo, I'd call that a win.

 

[Beef Invictus]

For me, the uproar isn't about him. It's the continued questionable asset management. Using a 3rd round pick on him is questionable.

Their use of draft picks and prospects in the cap era has been questionable in general. As I've said several times, it's a symptom of a larger problem.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.

They didn't have a 4th rounder & claimed he wouldn't have been there by their 5th rounder.

----------

I don't like the pick but I think calling Goulbourne a goon isn't really fair, he'll likely be a bottom 6 guy if he ever reaches the NHL but he does have some other qualities to his game than just fighting. I don't think it's really fair to compare him to Klotz.

Klotz:
150GP(3 seasons) 10PTS 229PIM -21

Goulbourne:
141GP(3 seasons) 42PTS 271PIM +1

 

[Beef Invictus]

Klotz was clearly a much worse pick, but this one doesn't look that great either.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

For me, the uproar isn't about him. It's the continued questionable asset management. Using a 3rd round pick on him is questionable.

Their use of draft picks and prospects in the cap era has been questionable in general. As I've said several times, it's a symptom of a larger problem.

Meh. I think calling any draft pick a good or bad pick two months post-draft is silly. There is no possible way to do it until they get on the ice. Even if, let's say in a parallel universe, Nurse went higher than Jones, you can't call it a bad pick until they get on the ice. You don't know how these guys will turn out and you don't know what information the drafting teams had. You can say up and down you don't like the pick, that's fine. I'll be right there, I didn't want Ghoulbourne in the third round or at all. But I'm not going to call it a bad pick and question the Flyer's asset management before the guy does anything.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I'm not questioning their asset management because of this pick. I questioned it long before this, and it just happens to fit the pattern.

 

[ILoveStephanieBrown]

Meh. I think calling any draft pick a good or bad pick two months post-draft is silly. There is no possible way to do it until they get on the ice. Even if, let's say in a parallel universe, Nurse went higher than Jones, you can't call it a bad pick until they get on the ice. You don't know how these guys will turn out and you don't know what information the drafting teams had. You can say up and down you don't like the pick, that's fine. I'll be right there, I didn't want Ghoulbourne in the third round or at all. But I'm not going to call it a bad pick and question the Flyer's asset management before the guy does anything.

That's where Im at. It's really a wait and see type thing.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I'm not questioning their asset management because of this pick. I questioned it long before this, and it just happens to fit the pattern.

Ok, well then I wouldn't put this in the category of poor asset management that you are concerned about for the same reasons that I wouldn't question their asset management because of this pick.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Ok, well then I wouldn't put this in the category of poor asset management that you are concerned about for the same reasons that I wouldn't question their asset management because of this pick.

Well, have you ever questioned their asset management? Serious question, not sure I've ever seen you do it, so I'm not sure what it would take to make you start.

They made me skeptical long ago.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Well, have you ever questioned their asset management? Serious question, not sure I've ever seen you do it, so I'm not sure what it would take to make you start.

They made me skeptical long ago.

Asset management is a very broad term. My position is, and always has been, that I call the brass out for bad moves and give them credit for good moves. I'm not going to panic/freak out every time a draft pick/mediocre prospect is traded, just like I am not going to dance a jig every time a draft pick/mediocre prospect is acquired.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It is indeed a very broad term, but the Flyers have done questionable things all around. Trading high picks and prospects while going to UFA instead of bringing up youth from within, until you have no choice but to trade the faces of the franchise to do a running rebuild is a questionable choice in the salary cap era. The prospect pool still hasn't recovered, and using a pick nearly every year (sometimes relatively high picks) on guys who would be fortunate to top out as 4th liners but your GM likes because they're "tough" (and possibly remind him of himself as a player) when you need to be trying to repair that prospect pool...that's questionable.

And it's a run-on sentence, apparently.

Homer has done plenty to justify questioning some of his more puzzling decisions; this pick is a bit puzzling. It's nowhere near as puzzling as the Shelley or Leighton signings, or even the Klotz pick, but it does register a blip on my puzzleometer.

I don't think Goul is doomed to fail or anything...but if there are players in the 3rd round who surpass him it's going to make the pick look stupid. In a vacuum this isn't so bad, but when looking at it as part of a larger picture it leans towards the "poor use of draft pick" area. Sure, the guy could succeed and prove me wrong, but looking at past examples it's not all that likely.

 

[BernieParent]

To go along with Beef's stat of Goulbourne being 171st on the ISS, the NHL CS final ranking had him as the 151st NA skater, which would arguably work out to lower than 171st. And Hockey Prospectus doesn't even have Goulbourne listed in their top 250.

I completely understand, DFF, that your question is unanswerable by those of us not privy to the inside discussions on Goulbourne. I floated out baseless speculation about going with a scout's preferred prospect to keep him happy (oversimplification of my point for brevity). This would have been immensely interesting to see on Flight Plan (hint hint). I understand that SanFilippo indicated Goulbourne was a target on the Flyers' list, but I am itching to see what skill set he brings to the ice that was worth a 3rd round pick and multiple players ranked higher on the Flyers' own list still available.

We can always use the Datsyuk case that GM after GM overlooked a future star for 5 rounds until he was picked 171st overall. But Datsyuk is the exception rather than the rule on late picks.

Even though Goulbourne was selected by a group of professional hockey talent evaluators who are paid to go to multiple games, drink awful coffee in run-down rinks, and watch prospects, I will retain my right to criticize their choice when every other metric at our disposal points to a later selection.

That being said, I will underline one sliver of promise: I came across (and please excuse my lateness to the party if this has already been posted) a slightly more than passing mention of Goulbourne on the NHL.com's central scouting meeting summary:

2:15 p.m. -- More often than not, the scouts always spend extra time discussing those mid- to late-round players that aren't as highly touted as some of the big names on the board. When the Central Scouting staffers began talking about center Tyrell Goulbourne of the Kelowna Rockets in the WHL, they were doing just that.

The 5-11, 195-pound Goulbourne had just 14 goals and 27 points in 64 games, but all the scouts were in agreement that he can slug it out when given an opportunity. He totaled 19 fights during 2012-13 regular season and racked up 135 penalty minutes. However, he also had a plus-7 rating, meaning he was more than just a one-dimensional player.

As well, this is the brief on Goulbourne from C J N (a supposed CHL team employee and former sports broadcaster) of the blog WHL From Above, who ranked him as the 44th best WHL prospect:

#44 - Tyrell Goulbourne - Kelowna Rockets - CL - 5'11 - 195 - Goulbourne is a physical force for the Rockets. He's not the biggest guy, but he hits very hard, plays a rugged game and is one of the leagues more dangerous scrappers. Improved his puck handling ability this season and saw a solid increase in his offensive production because of it. Could draw interest late in the draft as he also had a good postseason for Kelowna.

Maybe I'm overvaluing this nod to Goulbourne, but just maybe there's a shine of silver in the pan full of pebbles.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think the study was based on big picture drafting, not just comparing two players. I would say that number of NHL games of all your draft picks is a pretty good indicator of a good drafting team. If you don't like this measure, what would yours be? Guys drafted from HFBoards list?

Number of minutes played per game per draft pick (seperate forward and defense)
Games won/SV%/GAA for goalies
Goals per draft pick
Assists per draft pick
Points per draft pick
Awards won

I would also seperate by round.

The Flyers by their own admission take safer forward picks over other positions so I would expect them to have a fairly high GP rate. I would put the GP into context to see how well the picks did in those games.

 

[Flyerss]

if he picks a center with 1st or 2nd pick next year i will throttle him.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

if he pick a center with 1st or 2nd pick next year i will throttle him

Why? We've went heavy on defense the last two years now.

I'm all for drafting the best player whether it be a forward, defensemen, or goalie.

I don't believe in taking a goalie with a first unless its in the second half of the first round & later. I do think we'll need to spend an early pick (1st-3rd round) on a goalie next year though.

 

[tymed]

Just tossing it out there but a buddy of mine gets season tickets to the Rockets every year. The pick was admittedly a reach but Goul is a huge fan favorite out in Kelowna and also extremely popular with teammates.

My best comparison is ofcourse Rinaldo, whom I was very happy to see us pick (albeit Zac was a 6th vs. Goul at 3rd). With the departure of Downie I was really waiting for us to snag another guy like that. Now that Rinaldo has taken his career tot he next level and graduated to a big league role, I am just as pleased that we've replaced him within our system with Tyrell.

Gouls an absolute beast to have to drop the gloves with and hits like a train. doubling his offensive production upto 27 in 64 is nothing to twist your panties up about but for that type of player I think its great.

Consensus seems to be that we are happy to have a prospect like him but that we reached way too far to grab him. In the end, im satisfied with this pick and see him living up to it's value. Rinaldo has lived up to a 3rd imho.

I wouldnt group this pick in with the guys like Mathers and Klotz. In the new NHL i'll take upside issues over skating and coordination issues any draft day in this respect.

 

[Random Forest]

I'm not a fan of the Goulbourne pick, but I don't think you can call it bad asset management. If anything, it's actually good asset management.

If the Flyers believe they have a sure fire NHL player in Goulbourne, then the pick is fine from an asset management perspective because simply turning a 3rd round pick into an NHL quality player should be considered a success.

I mean, if you take a kid who has a 20% chance of turning into a second liner over a kid who has a 90% chance of turning into a fourth liner, and your pick ends up busting, is that considered good asset management?

Obviously saying Goulbourne is a 90% chance of being an NHL player is an exaggeration to prove my point, but it's obvious the Flyers management believes that he's a relatively safe bet considering that the role he will be expected to play on the Flyers is not one that requires any abundance of natural skill.

EDIT: And just to echo the above, Goulbourne is not a Klotz or a Mathers. Those two provide literally nothing else besides fists. Goulbourne has been praised for his heart, tenacity, ability to grind it out, and even PK. It's not a total waste. The only reason I don't like the pick is because I think we could have pretty easily traded the 3rd for a 4th and a 7th and ended up with Goulbourne and an extra prospect. I guess in that sense, it was weak asset management, but the difference is only a 7th rounder, so hardly anything to even think twice about.

 

[paradoxium]

if he pick a center with 1st or 2nd pick next year i will throttle him

Why? They should be drafting BPA. Why pass on a potentially better player for need?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Number of minutes played per game per draft pick (seperate forward and defense)
Games won/SV%/GAA for goalies
Goals per draft pick
Assists per draft pick
Points per draft pick
Awards won

I would also seperate by round.

The Flyers by their own admission take safer forward picks over other positions so I would expect them to have a fairly high GP rate. I would put the GP into context to see how well the picks did in those games.

Those metrics can be skewed though. You draft one Ovi and your goal numbers are going to go up. You are a defensive team and draft a lot of defensive players your points aren't going to be there, even if you are drafting really good players. Games played is a pretty solid marker. The Flyers have been getting NHL talent out of their draft picks (and with the fewest draft picks or close to it). That is what you want out of the draft. Even if they don't have the most points, assists, awards, whatever, they are getting players that are playing in the NHL. Someone posted it a while back but there is a very slight chance of getting any regularity out your later round picks, and the Flyers are crushing it in that respect.