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.
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.
The same.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?
I don't disagree with any of this, which is why I'm not a fan of the pick myself, either.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He was much better than mediocre and the end of last season.
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?
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.
Carcillo was also a few years older than Schenn, and the season they traded for him he had scored 10 points in 54 games.
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.