But Bill, their need was still Goaltending... Who did they have from 95-99 in goal? Hextall, Vanbeisbrook, Hackett, Burke... who am I forgetting? And the fact that everyone knows not all goalies come to fruition....

And then, you use your "position of strenght" to for trades and what do you end up with for the 3 first rounders you used?

3 months of Adam Oates, Robert Esche, and a throw in for Primeau. Not exactly worth the 3 firsts you spent on them.
- youarewrong

You missed the point. His point was for those that argue that the Flyers shouldn't draft a player who plays a position that they already have a staple of prospects at. Because those players aren't guaranteed to succeed. There is no such thing as having too many Centers. Who is the top rated Center in the Draft? If he falls to the Flyers at 11, and he's the best player available. They should absolutely take him.

It all depends who is on the board at 11.

If Ristolainen, Pulock, Nurse are all off the board... and I would probably take Monahan or Max Domi... I love Max Domi.
- jak521

He's taking it on the chin in the Memorial Cup so far.

You missed the point. His point was for those that argue that the Flyers shouldn't draft a player who plays a position that they already have a staple of prospects at. Because those players aren't guaranteed to succeed. There is no such thing as having too many Centers. Who is the top rated Center in the Draft? If he falls to the Flyers at 11, and he's the best player available. They should absolutely take him.
- MJL

It's a no-brainer as to what to do regarding your selection and the best player available. Regardless of position.

Worst case scenario is that you have an excess of quality players at one position who can be used as chips to shore up other areas of need.

You could even try and place the player at another position. Gagne was drafted as a center but I'd say had a decent career once being shifted to wing.

so did we get jagr yet?

It's a no-brainer as to what to do regarding your selection and the best player available. Regardless of position.

Worst case scenario is that you have an excess of quality players at one position who can be used as chips to shore up other areas of need.

You could even try and place the player at another position. Gagne was drafted as a center but I'd say had a decent career once being shifted to wing.
- 77rams

their biggest mistake was not converting gagne to a goalie. would have solved everything.

so did we get jagr yet?
- Philly1980

That's so 1990...

Whom ever I felt was the better player.
- MJL

That is compairing apples and oranges. So it comes down to, what does the originazation value more, and that is what I am talking about. Flyers need to shift thier values of players. A 2nd pairing d-man has to be condisered a higher player value then a 2nd line defensive center.

If only there was a formula... Like:

Prospect rank + positional need= BPA.

So for the Flyers Centers would be a +3, Rightwings would be +2, Leftwings would be a +1, Defensive D-men 0, Goalies -1, Offensive d-man-2,a nd 2 way d-men -3.

So if Monahan is ranked 6th and Pullok is ranked 10th, then it would work out... 6+3=9 For Monohan and 10-3=7 for Pullock. Meaning the Flyers would rank Pullock ahead of Monohan.

Way to go, Jake.

Depressing thought... the 76ers are selecting 11th in the NBA draft. Were the Flyers really as woeful as the 76ers last year?

Way to go, Jake.

Depressing thought... the 76ers are selecting 11th in the NBA draft. Were the Flyers really as woeful as the 76ers last year?
- 77rams

Yes they were. Yes they were.

Way to go, Jake.

Depressing thought... the 76ers are selecting 11th in the NBA draft. Were the Flyers really as woeful as the 76ers last year?
- 77rams

Damn, that is depressing.

/drinks heavily at desk

Seriously.....

I think the Flyers had a shot at the playoffs coming into this year and that's about it. I don't remember feeling great about the team that subtracted better talent than they acquired. That's not an LSchenn knock, BTW. I just felt like the team had problems after last year and that losing both Carle and Jagr without adequately replacing them didn't make me feel any better.

Still, the team could have made the playoffs with their current roster, I think.

Without Bynum, the Sixers had NO shot at doing anything this year. The NBA is such a star driven league that if you don't have one, it seems you can't succeed at all. I love basketball, but hate the NBA. Go figure.

Without using the internet, I'm guessing the Sixers were much further away from a playoff spot, at the end of their season, than the Flyers were.

It's a no-brainer as to what to do regarding your selection and the best player available. Regardless of position.

Worst case scenario is that you have an excess of quality players at one position who can be used as chips to shore up other areas of need.

You could even try and place the player at another position. Gagne was drafted as a center but I'd say had a decent career once being shifted to wing.
- 77rams

But if we go from Bills example, they kept drafting goalies... Boucher, Ouellet, and JM Pelletier. They used these guys as chips and ended up with 3 months of Adam Oates, Robert Esche, and a throw in for Keith Primeau.

The difference is IMO the Flyer's centers are already established NHL players. Not much chance of them being major flops. So you dont have to keep drafting centers on the chance some of them might not make it.

Way to go, Jake.

Depressing thought... the 76ers are selecting 11th in the NBA draft. Were the Flyers really as woeful as the 76ers last year?
- 77rams

Only differnce is we only had to suffer through half a season of Flyers garbage.

Damn, that is depressing.

/drinks heavily at desk

Seriously.....

I think the Flyers had a shot at the playoffs coming into this year and that's about it. I don't remember feeling great about the team that subtracted better talent than they acquired. That's not an LSchenn knock, BTW. I just felt like the team had problems after last year and that losing both Carle and Jagr without adequately replacing them didn't make me feel any better.

Still, the team could have made the playoffs with their current roster, I think.

Without Bynum, the Sixers had NO shot at doing anything this year. The NBA is such a star driven league that if you don't have one, it seems you can't succeed at all. I love basketball, but hate the NBA. Go figure.

Without using the internet, I'm guessing the Sixers were much further away from a playoff spot, at the end of their season, than the Flyers were.
- johndewar

The NBA is such a putrid league it's impossible to imagine 10 teams worse than the sixers, but there were.

Way to go, Jake.

Depressing thought... the 76ers are selecting 11th in the NBA draft. Were the Flyers really as woeful as the 76ers last year?
- 77rams

Yep I'm sure wherever he was going was too important for him to wait for the truck to turn

The NBA is such a putrid league it's impossible to imagine 10 teams worse than the sixers, but there were.
- Just5

As a marketing machine, the NBA is a great product.

As a competitive sports entity, the NBA is terrible, IMO.

They're cleaning house in Van City finally.

- hammarby31

s'only a flesh wound!

You missed the point. His point was for those that argue that the Flyers shouldn't draft a player who plays a position that they already have a staple of prospects at. Because those players aren't guaranteed to succeed. There is no such thing as having too many Centers. Who is the top rated Center in the Draft? If he falls to the Flyers at 11, and he's the best player available. They should absolutely take him.
- MJL

Agreed, as much as the Flyers need D, there are some scouts who think Nichushkin may still be around at 11 due to contract issues. If that is the case, I would be thrilled if the Flyers took him because he would be IMO by far the best player on the board.

But if we go from Bills example, they kept drafting goalies... Boucher, Ouellet, and JM Pelletier. They used these guys as chips and ended up with 3 months of Adam Oates, Robert Esche, and a throw in for Keith Primeau.

The difference is IMO the Flyer's centers are already established NHL players. Not much chance of them being major flops. So you dont have to keep drafting centers on the chance some of them might not make it.
- youarewrong

So, for example, at the 2006 draft, the Flyers who had centers Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, Peter Forsberg, and RJ Umberger on their roster, should have passed on yet another center at #22 named Claude Giroux and selected either the best defenseman available at that slot - Dennis Persson, or perhaps Ivan Vishnevsky? Or maybe a goaltender - Semen Varlamov or Leland Irving?

How many of us would be upset now at that decision?

http://video.nhl.com/vide...onsole?hdpid=49&id=250228

This is just insane presence.

Yep I'm sure wherever he was going was too important for him to wait for the truck to turn
- Just5

What caught my eye was, as per Panotch's and Sarah Baicker's report:

Sport.cz reported the accident occurred when Voracek attempted to pass a heavy-duty Mercedes trash truck as it slowed down to make a left-hand turn.

Damn. A Mercedes trash truck? I wonder if it was equipped with Bi-Xenon headlamps with Active Curve Illumination?

That is compairing apples and oranges. So it comes down to, what does the originazation value more, and that is what I am talking about. Flyers need to shift thier values of players. A 2nd pairing d-man has to be condisered a higher player value then a 2nd line defensive center.

If only there was a formula... Like:

Prospect rank + positional need= BPA.

So for the Flyers Centers would be a +3, Rightwings would be +2, Leftwings would be a +1, Defensive D-men 0, Goalies -1, Offensive d-man-2,a nd 2 way d-men -3.

So if Monahan is ranked 6th and Pullok is ranked 10th, then it would work out... 6+3=9 For Monohan and 10-3=7 for Pullock. Meaning the Flyers would rank Pullock ahead of Monohan.
- youarewrong

It's not apples and oranges. The Organization values who they feel is the best player available. Period. And I agree with them. There is no other formula.

So, for example, at the 2006 draft, the Flyers who had centers Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, Peter Forsberg, and RJ Umberger on their roster, should have passed on yet another center at #22 named Claude Giroux and selected either the best defenseman available at that slot - Dennis Persson, or perhaps Ivan Vishnevsky? Or maybe a goaltender - Semen Varlamov or Leland Irving?

How many of us would be upset now at that decision?
- 77rams

Well.. at the time Giroux was a right winger... but I agree.

The Organization values who they feel is the best player available. Period. And I agree with them. There is no other formula.
- MJL

By best available.. I believe that means in their mind, and how they plan on using said player. Its no secret that they draft forwards at a significantly higher clip in the first round.

To me... they value immediate impact more than projected impact, hence why they dont take d-men very often in the first round.

But if we go from Bills example, they kept drafting goalies... Boucher, Ouellet, and JM Pelletier. They used these guys as chips and ended up with 3 months of Adam Oates, Robert Esche, and a throw in for Keith Primeau.

The difference is IMO the Flyer's centers are already established NHL players. Not much chance of them being major flops. So you dont have to keep drafting centers on the chance some of them might not make it.
- youarewrong

Giroux right now is the only player that is established as a top player. I think Couturier and Schenn are going to be very good players, but there is no guarantee. And a Center that they could draft at 11, could turn out to be better then some of them. And Centers can be turned into a Winger.