If jones drops I take him

Not really sure what to do after that

And the changes begin in Vancouver...

Edler next?

I hope so.
- stveshdy

I have a nightmare that we trade top chips to get Edler and he proceeds to reaggrivate his chronic back condition in his first Flyers practice and lingering issues keep him out most of the season. Some in Vancouver think he's pretty inconsistent, possibly from having "good days and bad days" as far as his back. No doubt the guy is good when he's playing 100% though.

Honestly, as the draft approaches, I think the Flyers will do what they do best in the first round and draft a forward. I truly believe at least one of Nichushkin, Monahan, Horvat, Shinkaruk will be on the board. The Flyers just don't miss on drafting forwards in the first round too often, why deviate from success?

The phillies have already played the marlins, a team on pace to match some of the worst teams of all time, 9 times this year. And the phillies are still below .500

PENS looking unstoppable right now. Come on BOS!!
- coffee junkie

They have drawn by far the two most favorable opponents they could have gotten to start the playoffs. Nabokov is awful and Ottawa has been a poor matchup against the Pens for years now. The Senators are too soft.

They have drawn by far the two most favorable opponents they could have gotten to start the playoffs. Nabokov is awful and Ottawa has been a poor matchup against the Pens for years now. The Senators are too soft.
- psuhockey

They are far from unstoppable. Can't believe Boston has turned their game around they weren't looking good at the end of the year and in the first round

Final

Saskatoon - 2
Portland - 4

Halifax now in the final, Portland to the semifinals, Saskatoon now plays London, the winner gets Portland.

Honestly, as the draft approaches, I think the Flyers will do what they do best in the first round and draft a forward. I truly believe at least one of Nichushkin, Monahan, Horvat, Shinkaruk will be on the board. The Flyers just don't miss on drafting forwards in the first round too often, why deviate from success?
- ravishingone

This is something that's a bit of a conundrum. Yes, the Flyers have been adept at finding good NHL forwards in the first round, but some would argue that the success there has come at the expense of other areas such as the defense. Do they stick in their comfort zone or deviate in their philosophy a bit and lean more toward defense? There's a case to be made for both sides of the argument.

There is no list of prospect rankings that has it all correct. Every year scouts and other so called "experts" miss things...sometimes, big things. Each team's staff has their tendencies in terms of how they value players.

In determining the "best player available" I think it's ok (and probably pretty common) to factor in, to some extent, things like:

-the existing mix of organizational talent..strengths, weaknesses etc.

-the direction in which they want to go, their philosophy as an organization/team.

-the current and expected value of specific types of players in the marketplace (puck moving D men with size, versus say, defensive forwards)

If, after looking at all the factors, a GM and his staff feel that a player is the best player at that spot, for their needs, then I'm ok with it. In this case, since I feel the Flyers have a particularly egregious lack of young, offensive-defensemen in the system, drafting one of the top two-way/offensive defensemen, in a draft that has a few really good ones, isn't an unreasonable bias to have going into the draft. With that said, I am not advocating making too far a reach for a D man versus a forward they may have ahead of him.

I have my own list that has a Flyer based bias toward a few of the D men in the draft, but if certain select forwards are still there when the Flyers pick, like say, a Nichushkin if he falls, I would take them over anyone else not names Jones.

Here's my (current) list for the Flyers pick at #11:

assuming that the first four are gone...

(Jones)
(Drouin)
(MacKinnon)
(Barkov)

---------------

Whoever is left out of those below when the Flyers pick, I would take them:

Nichushkin
Nurse
Zadorov
Pulock
Lindholm
Shinkaruk
Monahan



Yes, but that is easier said than done and has it's risks. For one thing, opposing GMs have you over a barrell because it's obvious you need to make a deal...easy to end up overpaying. You can sign a free agent, but you end up overpaying to land any top 4 guys.



While some can make a smooth transition, other players struggle to adapt to that kind of change and/or simply aren't as good as they are when they play their natural positon. You can't just take it for granted that you can just move these guys around any which way imo.
- exlund

You seem to be picking on me. I like that.

To pick the best player available in round one isn't just OK, it's the best way. You draft for positional needs in the later rounds.

Sure, every team has it's own ratings and rankings which are very subjective most times, but they are developed after much discussion by the scouts and GM. True, sometimes you hit a home run and some you don't, nobody is claiming that it's an exact science. But the Flyers have as good a record with scoring big with their first round selections as any team in the league. And they've shown that they stay true to the "best player" philosophy. Recent example, last year they could have filled an obvious need by choosing Matta, but went with who they considered a better player in Laughton even though they have an abundance of young centers.

Certainly every trade comes with risks. But if you have too many good players at any one position, you're never over a barrel. Exactly the opposite, you're in the driver's seat. If a team needs a center and you have depth down the middle, you're not the team in need so why would you overpay? Worst case scenario is that you stay patient and keep your young talent until you get the right deal.

The last two times I can remember the Flyers overpaying for a D-man was for Pronger (but he was a piece that brought us to within 2 wins of the Cup so I can't really argue with that) and Steve Eminger (for which Homer should've been immediately taken out back and beaten with a bat).

The Flyers hand wasn't forced when they traded Richards and Carter. They had Giroux ready to step up and they were able to get quality back. I don't think we overpaid for the return we received.

I agree that some players do struggle when not in their comfortable positions, but the better players adapt. And it's not that uncommon for, say, a junior center to learn to play wing in the show. Gagne settled in nicely as a winger. Voracek came out of Halifax as center. Jeff Skinner was a center when he came out of Kitchener. The list goes on and on.

This is something that's a bit of a conundrum. Yes, the Flyers have been adept at finding good NHL forwards in the first round, but some would argue that the success there has come at the expense of other areas such as the defense. Do they stick in their comfort zone or deviate in their philosophy a bit and lean more toward defense? There's a case to be made for both sides of the argument.
- exlund

I would hope so, in such a deep draft. The upper echelon of talent is a bit more obvious, and requires a bit less professional scouting to get a good feel of. I suspect at least 1 of the top 3 defenseman (who aren't named Jones) will make it to #11, and if Ryan Pulock makes it, it should be all but a no brainer to take him (assuming a name such as Nichushkin, Barkov, etc doesn't for some reason fall there). It's easily arguable that at that point in the draft, Pulock will be the BAP anyways. He's going to drop because of injury, which would make it a steal for us.

They have drawn by far the two most favorable opponents they could have gotten to start the playoffs. Nabokov is awful and Ottawa has been a poor matchup against the Pens for years now. The Senators are too soft.
- psuhockey

Yeah those teams that finished above us suck. PIT sucks, I'm surprised they made the playoffs at all. Crosby? More like suck-sby!

This is something that's a bit of a conundrum. Yes, the Flyers have been adept at finding good NHL forwards in the first round, but some would argue that the success there has come at the expense of other areas such as the defense. Do they stick in their comfort zone or deviate in their philosophy a bit and lean more toward defense? There's a case to be made for both sides of the argument.
- exlund

There is, but it is not like they haven't used high draft picks in the past to significantly impact their d core on the NHL level. A first rounder for Kimmo. A second rounder for Grossmann and Mez. Multiple first rounders for Pronger (which at the time I totally agreed with the trade and still do) I think we get caught up a little too much in not developing d-men from high draft choices. High draft choices have been used to acquire NHL talent who were in their prime.

My only concern would be losing out on possible elite prospects by moving to 14. I'd rather have 1 elite defenseman than 2 top 4s. Chances are higher, by moving to 14 and 17, that we lose our shot at an elite prospect.
- JAKEw1234

Well, they can certainly wait and see who is on the board at 11, and then make a deal. They're going to get a very good player if they drop down to 14, and they'll get a 2nd very solid player in the early to mid-20's.

I wouldn't trade down at all unless it meant getting a second first rounder.

Well, they can certainly wait and see who is on the board at 11, and then make a deal. They're going to get a very good player if they drop down to 14, and they'll get a 2nd very solid player in the early to mid-20's.

I wouldn't trade down at all unless it meant getting a second first rounder.
- Jsaquella

I agree. This is a draft we should take full advantage of.

There is, but it is not like they haven't used high draft picks in the past to significantly impact their d core on the NHL level. A first rounder for Kimmo. A second rounder for Grossmann and Mez. Multiple first rounders for Pronger (which at the time I totally agreed with the trade and still do) I think we get caught up a little too much in not developing d-men from high draft choices. High draft choices have been used to acquire NHL talent who were in their prime.
- ravishingone

My issue is that the "can't develop defensemen" thing gets overblown.

They've taken defensemen in the first round. They have found solid late round and free agents that became solid players. The philosophy has long been to trade for defensemen, and that goes back to at least Bob McCammon, if not Keith Allen.

Generally, it's served them fairly well. It would be serving them well had Pronger not suffered the freak injury. They're not going to replace PRonger immediately, no matter who they draft this year. That's why I am fine with whomever they select.

My issue is that the "can't develop defensemen" thing gets overblown.

They've taken defensemen in the first round. They have found solid late round and free agents that became solid players. The philosophy has long been to trade for defensemen, and that goes back to at least Bob McCammon, if not Keith Allen.

Generally, it's served them fairly well. It would be serving them well had Pronger not suffered the freak injury. They're not going to replace PRonger immediately, no matter who they draft this year. That's why I am fine with whomever they select.
- Jsaquella

Granted, we can look back and say giving up draft picks for Kubina and Modry were questionable. However, for the most part, the draft choices given up to acquire d-men has been well worth it. It's not like if they had drafted a Shea Weber that his cap hit would have been less if he was "home grown". Elite players get paid regardless of position and who drafts them.

They draft a Shinkaruk or Horvat over a Pullock, pretty good bet from their recent past history they have acquired a future top 6 forward.

There is, but it is not like they haven't used high draft picks in the past to significantly impact their d core on the NHL level. A first rounder for Kimmo. A second rounder for Grossmann and Mez. Multiple first rounders for Pronger (which at the time I totally agreed with the trade and still do) I think we get caught up a little too much in not developing d-men from high draft choices. High draft choices have been used to acquire NHL talent who were in their prime.
- ravishingone

The Kimmo one was a bit more justifiable. We got a 1st rounder from Nashville in the Peter Forsberg trade. We then simply returned their own 1st round pick in exchange for both Hartnell and Kimmo.

The Kimmo one was a bit more justifiable. We got a 1st rounder from Nashville in the Peter Forsberg trade. We then simply returned their own 1st round pick in exchange for both Hartnell and Kimmo.
- JAKEw1234

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Giving up second rounders for Grossmann and Mez weren't worth it? I cannot go hindsight and say since they have had injury concerns since they were acquired it was bad use of draft choices. Before they were acquired, both didn't have major injury historys.

Pronger missed significant time once in his career with a wrist injury before his eye injury.

Granted, we can look back and say giving up draft picks for Kubina and Modry were questionable. However, for the most part, the draft choices given up to acquire d-men has been well worth it. It's not like if they had drafted a Shea Weber that his cap hit would have been less if he was "home grown". Elite players get paid regardless of position and who drafts them.

They draft a Shinkaruk or Horvat over a Pullock, pretty good bet from their recent past history they have acquired a future top 6 forward.
- ravishingone

Exactly. Elite players are going to get paid. Look at Crosby. He took a "home team discount" and still makes $8.7mm per year and has a ten year deal. Ovechkin didn't give the Caps a discount. Weber certainly did Nashville few favors.

To me, homegrown is immaterial.

The Kimmo one was a bit more justifiable. We got a 1st rounder from Nashville in the Peter Forsberg trade. We then simply returned their own 1st round pick in exchange for both Hartnell and Kimmo.
- JAKEw1234

Off the top of my head, since Holmgren's been the GM, the only trades for defensemen that wasn't really justifiable were the Kubina and Vandermeer trades.

And even those ones can be understood when you look at the situation in each case-banged up blue lines, lack of depth-if not exonerated. Now, some of the signings(Lilja) make one scratch their head

You seem to be picking on me. I like that.

To pick the best player available in round one isn't just OK, it's the best way. You draft for positional needs in the later rounds.

Sure, every team has it's own ratings and rankings which are very subjective most times, but they are developed after much discussion by the scouts and GM. True, sometimes you hit a home run and some you don't, nobody is claiming that it's an exact science. But the Flyers have as good a record with scoring big with their first round selections as any team in the league. And they've shown that they stay true to the "best player" philosophy. Recent example, last year they could have filled an obvious need by choosing Matta, but went with who they considered a better player in Laughton even though they have an abundance of young centers.

Certainly every trade comes with risks. But if you have too many good players at any one position, you're never over a barrel. Exactly the opposite, you're in the driver's seat. If a team needs a center and you have depth down the middle, you're not the team in need so why would you overpay? Worst case scenario is that you stay patient and keep your young talent until you get the right deal.

The last two times I can remember the Flyers overpaying for a D-man was for Pronger (but he was a piece that brought us to within 2 wins of the Cup so I can't really argue with that) and Steve Eminger (for which Homer should've been immediately taken out back and beaten with a bat).

The Flyers hand wasn't forced when they traded Richards and Carter. They had Giroux ready to step up and they were able to get quality back. I don't think we overpaid for the return we received.

I agree that some players do struggle when not in their comfortable positions, but the better players adapt. And it's not that uncommon for, say, a junior center to learn to play wing in the show. Gagne settled in nicely as a winger. Voracek came out of Halifax as center. Jeff Skinner was a center when he came out of Kitchener. The list goes on and on.
- 77rams

Ugh...I wrote out a response to you then must have hit ctrl shift "L" when trying to type "Laughton" and erased it...lol...

I'm too tired to rewrite it all...I'll just say, you bring up some good points...I just worry that when it comes to acquiring top paring D men, the price will be very high in trade, so, it'd be nice if they could get some more help via the draft to address an area of weakness in case they can't make the right deal to bring it in. I think there could be some D men available at #11 that wouldn't represent a big reach to take over some forwards likely to be there, I see it as taking the best player available, for the Flyers. Maybe Hamilton would have been better for the Flyers over Couturier, maybe Matta would have been the better pick over Laughton. We don't know, yet, that the supposed "best player available" in their view, was the right choice.

I think my list favors certain D men over certain ranked forwards, but keeps it real in terms of not passing over some select forwards that I'd take before some of the D I like...it's going to be a really interesting draft!

You seem to be picking on me. I like that.

To pick the best player available in round one isn't just OK, it's the best way. You draft for positional needs in the later rounds.

Sure, every team has it's own ratings and rankings which are very subjective most times, but they are developed after much discussion by the scouts and GM. True, sometimes you hit a home run and some you don't, nobody is claiming that it's an exact science. But the Flyers have as good a record with scoring big with their first round selections as any team in the league. And they've shown that they stay true to the "best player" philosophy. Recent example, last year they could have filled an obvious need by choosing Matta, but went with who they considered a better player in Laughton even though they have an abundance of young centers.

Certainly every trade comes with risks. But if you have too many good players at any one position, you're never over a barrel. Exactly the opposite, you're in the driver's seat. If a team needs a center and you have depth down the middle, you're not the team in need so why would you overpay? Worst case scenario is that you stay patient and keep your young talent until you get the right deal.

The last two times I can remember the Flyers overpaying for a D-man was for Pronger (but he was a piece that brought us to within 2 wins of the Cup so I can't really argue with that) and Steve Eminger (for which Homer should've been immediately taken out back and beaten with a bat).

The Flyers hand wasn't forced when they traded Richards and Carter. They had Giroux ready to step up and they were able to get quality back. I don't think we overpaid for the return we received.

I agree that some players do struggle when not in their comfortable positions, but the better players adapt. And it's not that uncommon for, say, a junior center to learn to play wing in the show. Gagne settled in nicely as a winger. Voracek came out of Halifax as center. Jeff Skinner was a center when he came out of Kitchener. The list goes on and on.
- 77rams

I agree completely. When you are trading from a surplus, you're not trading over a barrel. You're trading something you can afford to give in exchange for a need. And the other team is trading with you for a reason. They need something also. And there is one thing that most apparently forget when it comes to this. Every GM has the ability to say No!
For a lot of player in Juniors, their best position hasn't been identified yet. They're playing a position because of a team need, and they're dominant players, so it's easy for them. A player has to adapt to go from Juniors to the NHL in the first place. Regardless of what position they're asked to play.

Off the top of my head, since Holmgren's been the GM, the only trades for defensemen that wasn't really justifiable were the Kubina and Vandermeer trades.

And even those ones can be understood when you look at the situation in each case-banged up blue lines, lack of depth-if not exonerated. Now, some of the signings(Lilja) make one scratch their head
- Jsaquella

I would just add the Eminger trade to that. That was a headshaker.

Overall, Holmgren's deals for defenseman have been very strong. That's why I'm not all bent out of shape over one Season where the defense was lacking. This GM has a strong track record of putting together a strong defense. I see no reason why that isn't going to happen again.

I would just add the Eminger trade to that. That was a headshaker.

Overall, Holmgren's deals for defenseman have been very strong. That's why I'm not all bent out of shape over one Season where the defense was lacking. This GM has a strong track record of putting together a strong defense. I see no reason why that isn't going to happen again.
- MJL

Yeah, I forgot that one. Yeah, not an Eminger fan.

My concern isn't that the defense was lacking as much as I feel the coaching staff did a poor job in utilizing the pieces they had. Not that they were handed the keys to a Cup team, but it wasn't as if they had to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, either.

Yeah, I forgot that one. Yeah, not an Eminger fan.

My concern isn't that the defense was lacking as much as I feel the coaching staff did a poor job in utilizing the pieces they had. Not that they were handed the keys to a Cup team, but it wasn't as if they had to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, either.
- Jsaquella

That to me is certainly a relevant and important issue. And I certainly agree that the Coaching staff failed miserably last Season. But I see it as a separate issue. Even if they had adjusted, they'd likely be a playoff team, but not a contender. Although you never know what can happen in the playoffs. They need a high minute puck moving defenseman. And also hope that Gustafsson or Meszaros also add that element to the lineup, depending on who is still here. The defense as it was last year, was just too lacking in that area.