Prospect Info: Flyers actual 2013 draft rankings

[Flyerss]

if the BPA by a big margin is a C i would have no problem,but if not i would be more inclined towards drafting a LW or another D in the 1st round

Edit : if it's not a Top 10 pick

 

[Snotbubbles]

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.

That's why I would want it seperated by forwards, defense and goaltending. I would also seperate it by round. Puts GP into context.

Here goes the Flyers 3th round or late picks under Homer (only posted guys who played in NHL):

Tye McGinn 2010 4th round: 18 GP
Eric Wellwood 2009 6th round: 31 GP
Oliver Lauridsen 2009 7th round: 15 GP
MA Bourdon 2008 3rd round: 45 GP
Zac Rinaldo 2008 6th round: 98 GP
Jon Kalinski 2007 6th round: 22 GP
Pat Maroon 2007 6th round: 15 GP

That's not really killing it. The Flyers haven't hit a late round homerun since Patrick Sharp in 2001.

 

[Protest]

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.

If you consider it good asset management to take him in the 3rd, what type of asset management would you consider it if they took him in the 5th or 6th?

People don't have a big problem with the player, they have a problem with where he was selected and what that says about the organization's view on players like him. They took him over more highly skilled players when they could have got him or someone like him later on. It is not a isolated incident, its a continuation of a trend. We traded Upshall for Carcillo, gave Shelley a ludicrous contract, and took Klotz and then this guy in the 3rd round.

Sports teams are comprised of scarce resources, pro athletes. Most players have a certain profile based on their skills, playmaker, sniper, grinder etc. When you're constructing a team, there way more players with Goulbourne's types of skills than there are someone like Milan Hejduk. In the third round you should be drafting guys you think could play in your Top 6/Top 4 if they pan out, not your 4th line. You can always find people to play on your 4th line.

 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

I know the name Rinaldo has come up when describing Goulbourne, but I think Holmgren did a disservice to Goulbourne by calling him that. Watch Goulbourne play and Rinaldo doesn't really come to mind. Honestly, he looks like a better skating Aaron Asham, but he doesn't have quite the hands that Asham had in junior hockey. I don't get the hate that the guy receives. He's a player that keeps the opposition honest, doesn't do anything stupid when he's on the ice, and plays a real solid game defensively. I'm not defending the pick, but at the same time, it isn't exactly the worst pick either.

 

[Random Forest]

If you consider it good asset management to take him in the 3rd, what type of asset management would you consider it if they took him in the 5th or 6th?

The same.

I think you'd be surprised how little difference there is between picks after the second round.

People don't have a big problem with the player, they have a problem with where he was selected and what that says about the organization's view on players like him. They took him over more highly skilled players when they could have got him or someone like him later on. It is not a isolated incident, its a continuation of a trend. We traded Upshall for Carcillo, gave Shelley a ludicrous contract, and took Klotz and then this guy in the 3rd round.

Sports teams are comprised of scarce resources, pro athletes. Most players have a certain profile based on their skills, playmaker, sniper, grinder etc. When you're constructing a team, there way more players with Goulbourne's types of skills than there are someone like Milan Hejduk. In the third round you should be drafting guys you think could play in your Top 6/Top 4 if they pan out, not your 4th line. You can always find people to play on your 4th line.

I don't disagree with any of this, which is why I'm not a fan of the pick myself, either.

I'm just saying that if the Flyers feel he is a near certainty to play in the NHL, then who am I to argue with the pick? Any time you make a "hit" in the third round, it is a success.

I know there's always the chance for a home run, but some people need to realize that getting on base is still better than striking out even if you don't knock it out of the park. That's all I'm saying.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

That's why I would want it seperated by forwards, defense and goaltending. I would also seperate it by round. Puts GP into context.

Here goes the Flyers 3th round or late picks under Homer (only posted guys who played in NHL):

Tye McGinn 2010 4th round: 18 GP
Eric Wellwood 2009 6th round: 31 GP
Oliver Lauridsen 2009 7th round: 15 GP
MA Bourdon 2008 3rd round: 45 GP
Zac Rinaldo 2008 6th round: 98 GP
Jon Kalinski 2007 6th round: 22 GP
Pat Maroon 2007 6th round: 15 GP

That's not really killing it. The Flyers haven't hit a late round homerun since Patrick Sharp in 2001.

I think it is killing it compared to other teams though, at least that was what the article was talking about. Does anyone have a link to that article btw, because I am just going on memory and I could very well be remembering it wrong.

 

[jd2210]

I know the name Rinaldo has come up when describing Goulbourne, but I think Holmgren did a disservice to Goulbourne by calling him that. Watch Goulbourne play and Rinaldo doesn't really come to mind. Honestly, he looks like a better skating Aaron Asham, but he doesn't have quite the hands that Asham had in junior hockey. I don't get the hate that the guy receives. He's a player that keeps the opposition honest, doesn't do anything stupid when he's on the ice, and plays a real solid game defensively. I'm not defending the pick, but at the same time, it isn't exactly the worst pick either.

His stats, coaches opinion and scouting reports make me think of Powe a lot more than Rinaldo.

 

[tymed]

I hear Ghost and Goul are 3rd Cousins...

 

[Snotbubbles]

If you consider it good asset management to take him in the 3rd, what type of asset management would you consider it if they took him in the 5th or 6th?

People don't have a big problem with the player, they have a problem with where he was selected and what that says about the organization's view on players like him. They took him over more highly skilled players when they could have got him or someone like him later on. It is not a isolated incident, its a continuation of a trend. We traded Upshall for Carcillo, gave Shelley a ludicrous contract, and took Klotz and then this guy in the 3rd round.

Sports teams are comprised of scarce resources, pro athletes. Most players have a certain profile based on their skills, playmaker, sniper, grinder etc. When you're constructing a team, there way more players with Goulbourne's types of skills than there are someone like Milan Hejduk. In the third round you should be drafting guys you think could play in your Top 6/Top 4 if they pan out, not your 4th line. You can always find people to play on your 4th line.

In all fairness, the Upshall/Carcillo trade was for cap reasons to keep Giroux up. Holmgren wasn't looking for value there, he was looking for cap space (although it was his fault they didn't have cap space).

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think it is killing it compared to other teams though, at least that was what the article was talking about. Does anyone have a link to that article btw, because I am just going on memory and I could very well be remembering it wrong.

Define killing it. The is the problem with using NHL games played. One game played isn't the same as another. It's like comparing defensive abilities and using +/- as a way to determine who plays better defense.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Define killing it. The is the problem with using NHL games played. One game played isn't the same as another. It's like comparing defensive abilities and using +/- as a way to determine who plays better defense.

Like I said, compared to other teams, the article was saying the Flyers have gotten more NHL talent with fewer picks than most (if not all...I don't remember) of the NHL.

Measuring by NHL game t isn't like comparing +/-. It is really the best way to judge a good drafting team. If you look at points, how do you account for getting a defensive forward or a defenseman? Looking at awards is pointless because it is incredibly rare for a late rounder to even be an NHL regular, let alone an award winner. Looking at minutes played also isn't a good gauge because you are drafting guys for different roles. If you get one guy that plays top line minutes that will skew everything if you get a team that drafts four bottom six guys that don't play as much. I'd say a better drafting team is the one who gets more NHL talent consistently rather than the team that finds the diamond in the rough once.

Anyway, I can't find the exact article that I am talking about, but here is something similar.

http://goaltenderinterference.blogspot.com/2013/05/who-is-the-best-drafting-team-in-nhl.html

This has the Flyers listed as the 10th best drafting team from 1999-2009. Again it isn't the same exact article so the other one may have different stats, but again, my point is that for some reason people aren't trusting the Flyers with this pick because outside sources don't like it, which makes no sense. A team with an excellent draft record compared to other teams gets no deference and a bunch of pundits are the guys you trust.

 

[Protest]

The same.

I think you'd be surprised how little difference there is between picks after the second round.


I don't disagree with any of this, which is why I'm not a fan of the pick myself, either.

I'm just saying that if the Flyers feel he is a near certainty to play in the NHL, then who am I to argue with the pick? Any time you make a "hit" in the third round, it is a success.

I know there's always the chance for a home run, but some people need to realize that getting on base is still better than striking out even if you don't knock it out of the park. That's all I'm saying.

The chance of finding an NHL player is pretty slim after the 2nd round, but the chance of finding one the the 3rd round are over double that in the 5th or 6th. That is a sizable difference.

We'll have to agree to disagree about draft philosophy. To me it makes no sense to draft a player that you can find literally right now for league minimum if you wanted. How would you rather spend your dollar, at the claw machine with the iphone 5 in it or at the play til you win one with penny candy in it?

EDIT: This is a bad analogy because we all love candy...but the point was you can always get the candy for a dollar lol.

In all fairness, the Upshall/Carcillo trade was for cap reasons to keep Giroux up. Holmgren wasn't looking for value there, he was looking for cap space (although it was his fault they didn't have cap space).

I agree, but my point was towards the fact that he got a player like Carcillo, and not a different type of 4th line player. Its like when in doubt get the dude that punches hard.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I agree, but my point was towards the fact that he got a player like Carcillo, and not a different type of 4th line player. Its like when in doubt get the dude that punches hard.

In fairness, Carcillo wasn't just a pair of fists. He had scored 24 points in 57 games as a 23 year old the year before they acquired him, so I think there was some hope that he could be a Sean Avery type of player (imagine if a Flyers prospect did that...they would be destined for top line greatness!). Not the Sean Avery at the end of the line, but the Sean Avery in his prime where he was putting up decent numbers and wreaking havoc on the ice without being a complete jackass.

 

[Beef Invictus]

In fairness, Carcillo wasn't just a pair of fists. He had scored 24 points in 57 games as a 23 year old the year before they acquired him, so I think there was some hope that he could be a Sean Avery type of player (imagine if a Flyers prospect did that...they would be destined for top line greatness!). Not the Sean Avery at the end of the line, but the Sean Avery in his prime where he was putting up decent numbers and wreaking havoc on the ice without being a complete jackass.

Your sarcasm falls apart with Cousins in the system. I don't see anybody pegging him for top line greatness.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Your sarcasm falls apart with Cousins in the system. I don't see anybody pegging him for top line greatness.

If Cousins did that in the NHL in his first real season at age 23 (Carcillo played 18 games the year before), you think people would still say he tops out as a third liner? Hell, Gus has played 60 mediocre NHL games and he is already a top 4 defender by most on this board.

 

[Beef Invictus]

If Cousins did that in the NHL in his first real season at age 23 (Carcillo played 18 games the year before), you think people would still say he tops out as a third liner? Hell, Gus has played 60 mediocre NHL games and he is already a top 4 defender by most on this board.

Mediocre? Gus has outperformed one of our top 4 defenders. That kinda puts him in the top 4.

 

[Curufinwe]

He was much better than mediocre and the end of last season.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Mediocre? Gus has outperformed one of our top 4 defenders. That kinda puts him in the top 4.

This may be true for part of a shortened season, but that doesn't mean he is a legit top 4 defender. He certainly didn't do that in the first half of his illustrious 60 game career. If he plays like a top 4 defender for an entire season (i.e. not part of parts of a season), that is when I will call him a top four defender. And that is not me saying Gus sucks or won't amount to anything, it is simply saying that you don't call a 24 year old with 60 NHL games where part of them were top 4 caliber a legit top 4 defender. For instance, when the Flyers acquired Dan Carcillo, you probably didn't say he was a legit top 9 forward based on his limited play. You probably said he has that potential but since he has only played in a handful of games, you weren't going to call him that yet. And you would have been right becuase Carcillo is not a top 9 guy. And once again I am not saying Gus won't be a top 4 guy someday, only that I am not going to make that call based on 60 NHL games spread out over parts of three seasons. It simply doesn't make sense.

But that's not the point I was trying to make, as that topic has been discussed ad nauseum in prior threads. I was simply trying to point out that at the time Carcillo was acquired, he wasn't the same Dan Carcillo. He was a 23 year old who had just scored at a .42 PPG pace in his first real season of NHL action. That is something you cannot dispute. That is pretty solid play for a 23 year old who also spent over 300 minutes in the penalty box on what is always described as a defensive team. I guess what I am saying (and this Gus thing really brings it full circle), is that if Gus is top 4 based on how he played in his first 60 NHL games, why doesn't the same analysis apply to Carcillo, who by all accounts had an much more impressive start to his NHL career (and was younger and was actually drafted in the third round)?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

He was much better than mediocre and the end of last season.

Exactly. At the end of last season. Let's see if he can keep it up. He may have played like a top four defender for part of 60 games, but that does not make him a top four defender. If it does, then Steve Mason should hands down be the starter and Tye McGinn should be given the third line spot, because they played to that level of production during parts of last season.

 

[Beef Invictus]

This may be true for part of a shortened season, but that doesn't mean he is a legit top 4 defender. He certainly didn't do that in the first half of his illustrious 60 game career. If he plays like a top 4 defender for an entire season (i.e. not part of parts of a season), that is when I will call him a top four defender. And that is not me saying Gus sucks or won't amount to anything, it is simply saying that you don't call a 24 year old with 60 NHL games where part of them were top 4 caliber a legit top 4 defender. For instance, when the Flyers acquired Dan Carcillo, you probably didn't say he was a legit top 9 forward based on his limited play. You probably said he has that potential but since he has only played in a handful of games, you weren't going to call him that yet. And you would have been right becuase Carcillo is not a top 9 guy. And once again I am not saying Gus won't be a top 4 guy someday, only that I am not going to make that call based on 60 NHL games spread out over parts of three seasons. It simply doesn't make sense.

But that's not the point I was trying to make, as that topic has been discussed ad nauseum in prior threads. I was simply trying to point out that at the time Carcillo was acquired, he wasn't the same Dan Carcillo. He was a 23 year old who had just scored at a .42 PPG pace in his first real season of NHL action. That is something you cannot dispute. That is pretty solid play for a 23 year old who also spent over 300 minutes in the penalty box on what is always described as a defensive team. I guess what I am saying (and this Gus thing really brings it full circle), is that if Gus is top 4 based on how he played in his first 60 NHL games, why doesn't the same analysis apply to Carcillo, who by all accounts had an much more impressive start to his NHL career (and was younger and was actually drafted in the third round)?

I don't want anyone on the team who puts up Carcillo-like penalty minutes. He didn't put up enough points to make up for his idiocy. In the cap era it's downright dumb to have a cap hit that spends all its time putting the team a man down.

As you may recall, Carcillo was never popular around here and people were pissed when he was on the top line. Why do you think his second coming would be more loved? There's a huge difference between Gus, who helped the team, and Carcillo, who was a liability more often than not.

Edit: Oh, and I can't believe you're still trashing Gus. We beat this into the ground and you didn't really have anything to back up your assertion that he hasn't been better than Mez over roughly the same amount of games the last two seasons.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I don't want anyone on the team who puts up Carcillo-like penalty minutes. He didn't put up enough points to make up for his idiocy. In the cap era it's downright dumb to have a cap hit that spends all its time putting the team a man down.

As you may recall, Carcillo was never popular around here and people were pissed when he was on the top line. Why do you think his second coming would be more loved?

The PIMs may have been a factor, but he still put up an impressive amount of points for the amount he played. Brayden Schenn's first season in Philly he put up 18 points in just over 14 minutes per game. Carcillo (in three more games) put up 24 points in less than 13 minutes per game. Obviously I am not saying that Carcillo is better in any way than Schenn, but I am just pointing out that he had a pretty solid first year in the NHL, certainly one that would not make you think he was just a figher.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by the last question.

Edit: Oh, and I can't believe you're still trashing Gus. We beat this into the ground and you didn't really have anything to back up your assertion that he hasn't been better than Mez over roughly the same amount of games the last two seasons.

I am not trashing Gus. The kid has played in 60 games. In what world does 60 games over three seasons in the NHL make someone a top 4 defender? Even if I were to concede that in all 60 of those games he has played like a top 4 defender (which I am absolutely not doing and I really don't see how you can make that argument), but even if I did concede that, I still wouldn't say he is a legit top 4 defender. Why? BECAUSE HE HAS ONLY DONE IT FOR 60 GAMES SPREAD OUT OVER THREE SEASONS. As far as my backing up Mez as being better, for one he has more than double the points of Gus, while battling injuries. And for another, he has played better or at least on the same level defensively for most of the time Gus has been in the NHL. Sure, there were probably games where Gus played better defensively. I'd even say it is possible that in half of the games Gus played better defensively. But even then, the fact remains that Mez was better the other half and has double the points. I'm not ready to throw the towel in on Mez based on 11 games out of a shortened season, just like I am not ready to declare Gus a top four defender based on 30 games out of a shortened season. If Gus comes into camp and wins the spot, great. I have nothing against the guy and I am not saying he sucks, I am just saying I am not going to crown him a top 4 defender based on part of parts of a couple seasons.

Now respond and say Gus's Corsi was better so that means he was better.

 

[Protest]

Carcillo was also a few years older than Schenn, and the season they traded for him he had scored 10 points in 54 games.

 

[Beef Invictus]

In the eyeball test Gus has been better than Mez. In the stats Gus has been better than Mez. He has played competently in the top 4. He's younger with more room for growth and his cap hit is smaller.

What do you have that disproves these things?

The fact that you belittle stats is telling.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Carcillo was also a few years older than Schenn, and the season they traded for him he had scored 10 points in 54 games.

Oh I know, I was just saying that Carcillo put up some pretty solid numbers for a guy in his first real season of regular action.

In the eyeball test Gus has been better than Mez.

We must be have been watching two separate teams. While Gus has certainly played better than Mez in some of the 60 games he has played, that doesn't mean he IS better. And once again, there is nothing you can say that would have me agree that he has been better in every one of those 60 games. His first season he did not play like a top four defender. That is not a knock on him. I am not trashing him. He just didn't. It was hist first time in the NHL and he played well for sure, but not better than Mez and not at a top 4 level. Last year he ceratinly improved, but again, in such a short sample, I wouldn't call him a top 4 guy or better than Mez.

In the stats Gus has been better than Mez. He has played competently in the top 4. He's younger with more room for growth and his cap hit is smaller.

What stats has Gus been better than Mez? Not offense. And yes he has played competently in the top at times. I agree, but not his full 60 games. And yes his cap hit is smaller and he is younger, but that doesn't make him better. If we were talking about who I would rather sign and have for the future, I'd go with Gus. If we have them both on the team under contract, I'd go with the better player.

What do you have that disproves these things?

The fact that you belittle stats is telling.

Good point.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Not offense? Then why did the team produce at a higher rate with Gus on the ice over Mez of late? As for the other stats...well, we've been over this. We've shown you the horde of stats where Gus outperforms Mez. Do you really need to see them again? It's not like they've changed yet.

To be sure, in the start Gus didn't outperform Mez. However, Gus has consistently trended upwards to the points where he HAS outperformed him over the last 30 games. If you're concerned about him not being top 4 capable during his first 15-20 games in the league then you're looking at this wrong...you should be looking at what he is now.