All the more reason to reconsider your stance on taking a defenseman and seek out value at another position. Ginning played games in the SHL as a 16 and 17 year old. He played in two u18 tournaments. He played in the Ivan Hlinka. He played in 5 Nations. Everyone saw this kid play. He was the 23rd defenseman selected. Now ask yourself is it more likely that a) the Flyers saw something no other team did and got a steal or that b) every team saw him and didn't see a top 4 defender in the NHL so they passed on him and he slipped.
I don't doubt what the Flyers plan was. They liked the forwards in the 14-19 range a lot more than the defensemen and that they would take the best available defenseman in round 2. That was a fine approach leading up to the draft. That was my preferred draft as well. When the Flyers made pick 19, there were only 6 defensemen taken. Unfortunately by the time they were on the clock again 16 more went. It was slim pickings at the point and Hextall pretty much confirmed it when he said it was between Ginning and another kid. In the second round you can't force need. You have to try your best to find an NHL player. You only have about a ~20% as it is. Why complicate it and not take the BPA? I think they got caught with their pants down with that run of Dmen in the late 1st/early 2nd.
Sorry for the long read, I had some things I wanted to say after the pick yesterday but this board was so jacked up that I had to wait until today.
That assumes that they thought that any of the forwards left had top six upside. Or that Anderson's upside was greater than Friedman (who was a top flight offensive defenseman in college). A "reach" assumes they liked other players much better rather than considering them roughly equivalent.
If the choice is between a safe 3rd pair defenseman, a smaller defenseman who's a tweener (too small for a defensive role, not skilled enough for top four NHL role), and a forward who's got 3rd line upside, then taking the safe defenseman isn't much of a surprise, given they had already landed two forwards with top six upside.
I also think the AHL factors into Hextall's thinking past the sure fire NHL prospects.
He wants a strong NHL team, as we saw this year, a long playoff run provides invaluable experience to prospects.
And a deep AHL means a stable of marginal NHL players who can fill in for injuries - and most over 30 AHL vets don't qualify (or they'd be in the NHL).
So stocking up on young defensemen when that was a dire organizational need (especially in a couple years) was not just about finding NHL players, but ensuring there's talent in LHV.
Ginning will probably play 2, maybe 3 years in the AHL, starting in 2019-20. He should be the mainstay for the LHV defense, while he develops his skills enough to be at the very least a #6/#7 defenseman.
At pick 50, you're not going to find a lot of NHL starters (i.e 400 games or more):
2004-2008, #50-100, NHL starters:
2004: Booth #53, Grossman #56, Dubinsky #60, Goligoski #61, Krejci #63, Prust #70, Sekura #71, Yemelin #84, Elder #91, Franzen #97, Kennedy #99
2005: Raymond #51, McQuaid #55, Letang #62, Russell #67, Quick #72, Franson #79, Bishop #85
2006: Lucis #50, Anisimov #54, Mason #69, Marchand #71, Clutterbuck #72
2007: Spaling #58, Simmonds #61, Weber #73, Killorn #75, Martinez #95
2008: Stepan #51, Stone #69, Smith #79, Henrique #82, Holtby #93
33 in 5 years out of 250 or 13%.
50-59: 8 of 50 or 16%.
Ginning if he develops into a solid 3rd pair defenseman has a good shot at 400 games. There's only a few stars in this group.
