They got a gift in 2017, and it turned into a poop show. Picking at the top of the draft guarantees nothing.
- PLindbergh31

There are no guarantees in anything.

That does not however mean that any one method is as good as the other though does it? Lets look at the two strategies most discussed here and our recent history.

Flyers were on merit a legit bad club in 2006, and got a #2 pick which turned out not to be a franchise changer. They however, immediately signed so many top level names that the next years, they did not draft high. In 2017, they won the lottery, (and so were not on merit that bad) so again, they went back to middle picks. Bottom line, they only dipped twice in the pot, separated by 10 years between dips. Its like sending out 5 resumes during a job search. The sample set is too small for results to be meaningful.

Now, take some franchises, other than Buffalo which have picked high for a consecutive number of years and ended up in worse shape than the Flyers. They are not that many. People here often laugh at Toronto and Edmonton. But the point is, after the rebuild ends, are they any worse off than the 'stay competitive' clubs like us? Yeah, we won some more regular season games during their tank years: Who gives a crap about that? Even if the rebuild does not end in a cup (and that is far from determined for Leafs and Oilers as of now), the most likely situation is they are, at worst, pretty much like the clubs that did not tank. Look now at Florida, Canes, also in this category.

And those are actually the worst cases (again, leaving out Buffalo). The best cases are Pens, Hawks, Tampa, and I suspect, once the teething pains are over, you will add Avs to that list.

So, bottom line: pick high for a number of years, and have a competent team management in place (unlike the morons in Buffalo and Arizona) and the overwhelming chances are that at worst, you will end up no worse than the "stay competitive" clubs. At best, you will have a mini-dynasty.

Stay competitive and draft mid-rounds, and the chances of you winning the cup are much, much smaller. Do you think Habs will win? The Preds in the near future? How about the Wild? Us?

So, its a pretty clear trade-off: rebuild properly and you will suffer the pain of some bad regular seasons but you will have a far better chance of winning than stay competitive. And yes, that far better chance is not a certainty or guarantee though.

Fans who support one or the other policy are perfectly justified in whichever one they support, but not justified in choosing the wrong rationale. If someone says: I don't want to suffer the cost of bad seasons because this is an entertainment and I want my seasons worth of it and I don't want to give that up for a better chance of winning: fine. No one can argue with that logic.

But don't pretend that the not rebuild (stay competitive) strategy is just as good as the full rebuild strategy. That completely flies in the face of both theory and evidence.

My theory is based on a few things...
- Stayin alive

I saw your theory the other day. My basic point is that one flaw in the theory is deciding when to prioritize getting a top goalie prospect. You claim that you count from Hart’s draft year simply because he was a top prospect when drafted. I was trying to point out that many of the later round picks also pan out (quantity not percentage). So if a team hits at goalie in the later rounds or a free agent that is just as important in future planning as whether the prospect was a census top prospect at draft time.

To relate that to the Flyers; they hit most recently on Ersson.

To the point that was already made by another poster, it’s more important to have reliable scouting and pick well then where in the draft they are chosen...so in other words, the team’s internal rank is what matters.

All the signage says masks recommended for non-vaccinated visitors but it's strictly honor system and relatively few people wore them. In Uber rides, masks are still required. Most businesses are open at full capacity and regular hours. Shows are starting up again but not nearly as many as pre-Covid are currently running. By late summer, they will.
- bmeltzer

About time.

I saw your theory the other day. My basic point is that one flaw in the theory is deciding when to prioritize getting a top goalie prospect. You claim that you count from Hart’s draft year simply because he was a top prospect when drafted. I was trying to point out that many of the later round picks also pan out (quantity not percentage). So if a team hits at goalie in the later rounds or a free agent that is just as important in future planning as whether the prospect was a census top prospect at draft time.

To relate that to the Flyers; they hit most recently on Ersson.

To the point that was already made by another poster, it’s more important to have reliable scouting and pick well then where in the draft they are chosen...so in other words, the team’s internal rank is what matters.
- NC Flyers Fan

The theory is based on % likely to turn out. Which especially at goalie position the top 1 maybe 2 prospects have a way higher %chance to turn vs the field( rest of goalies combined in a particular draft class ) for example
1) say for discussion top 1/2 prospects have 50% chance (just for example)
2) the field have 10% chance ( 20 goalies taken in draft class field.

The smart move is to roll dice with option 1

And Ersson hasn’t panned out. He has played zero nhl games. Could he? Possibly but the odds are extremely high he’ll go by the wayside like 90% of the other “field” goalies. Obviously those numbers aren’t exact and just for example but still

Is Seattle guaranteed the first pick next year?

Either way, there are 3 guys very highly rated and the odds of an awful team getting a top 3 pick are pretty good.

Start by signing, then trading Coutourier now to get max value.
- DrMidnite

Next year as in 22? I don't think so.

They got a gift in 2017, and it turned into a poop show. Picking at the top of the draft guarantees nothing.
- PLindbergh31

Guarantee, no. But statistically speaking you have greater odds landing "that guy" towards the top.

Do you think Habs will win?
- PT21

With Carey Price playing like this they have just about as good a chance as anybody.

Flyers took the top goalie in 2016...

2017 Jake Oettinger (26th-overall)
2016 Carter Hart (48th-overall)
2015 Ilya Samsonov (22th-overall)
2014 Mason MacDonald (34th-overall)
2013 Zach Fucale (36th-overall)
2012 Andrey Vasilevskiy (19th-overall)
2011 Magnus Hellberg (38th-overall)
2010 Jack Campbell (11th-overall)
2009 Mikko Koskinen (31st-overall)
2008 Chet Pickard (18th-overall)
2007 Joel Gilstedt (36th-overall)
2006 Jonathan Bernier (11th-overall)
2005 Carey Price (5th-overall)
2004 Al Montoya (6th-overall)
2003 Marc-Andre Fleury (1st-overall)
2002 Kari Lehtonen (2nd-overall)
2001 Pascal Leclaire (8th-overall)
2000 Rick DiPietro (1st-overall)


And as you can see from the rest of this list, your chance of landing a franchise goalie by just taking the top-rated 18-yo yields about a 11-12% success rate (only Vasilevskiy and Price really qualify). Now imagine how low your success rate would be if you just randomly selected years to target a goalie on top of that.


- Tomahawk

You put far too much effort into proving what the rest of us already knew about this bull poop theory. But, well done.

With Carey Price playing like this they have just about as good a chance as anybody.
- Tomahawk

Bollocks.

You put far too much effort into proving what the rest of us already knew about this bull poop theory. But, well done.
- BenderRodriguez

Someone needs to when people are screaming to draft more goalies like it’s the cure to all our needs

The theory is based on % likely to turn out. Which especially at goalie position the top 1 maybe 2 prospects have a way higher %chance to turn vs the field( rest of goalies combined in a particular draft class ) for example
1) say for discussion top 1/2 prospects have 50% chance (just for example)
2) the field have 10% chance ( 20 goalies taken in draft class field.

The smart move is to roll dice with option 1

And Ersson hasn’t panned out. He has played zero nhl games. Could he? Possibly but the odds are extremely high he’ll go by the wayside like 90% of the other “field” goalies. Obviously those numbers aren’t exact and just for example but still
- Stayin alive

My guess is that the top and the field of hits at goalie are not as disparate as your example but the real issue is that you are not willing to accept any kind of projection on later round selections even three years after draft just because they were not a top prospect at draft time.

This is a flaw in thinking for a position that takes years to develop. Not being willing to check in at a goalie prospect’s projection until five years after drafting is too late in my opinion. Hart is very unusual in that he has already started 95 NHL games at age 22. By your measure anyone who hasn’t debuted at least a small sample at the NHL level can’t be counted on so get another top goalie prospect? Like I said earlier, you then miss at your best shot at another position, for what?...The principal of the thing?

There are no guarantees in anything.

That does not however mean that any one method is as good as the other though does it? Lets look at the two strategies most discussed here and our recent history.

Flyers were on merit a legit bad club in 2006, and got a #2 pick which turned out not to be a franchise changer. They however, immediately signed so many top level names that the next years, they did not draft high. In 2017, they won the lottery, (and so were not on merit that bad) so again, they went back to middle picks. Bottom line, they only dipped twice in the pot, separated by 10 years between dips. Its like sending out 5 resumes during a job search. The sample set is too small for results to be meaningful.

Now, take some franchises, other than Buffalo which have picked high for a consecutive number of years and ended up in worse shape than the Flyers. They are not that many. People here often laugh at Toronto and Edmonton. But the point is, after the rebuild ends, are they any worse off than the 'stay competitive' clubs like us? Yeah, we won some more regular season games during their tank years: Who gives a crap about that? Even if the rebuild does not end in a cup (and that is far from determined for Leafs and Oilers as of now), the most likely situation is they are, at worst, pretty much like the clubs that did not tank. Look now at Florida, Canes, also in this category.

And those are actually the worst cases (again, leaving out Buffalo). The best cases are Pens, Hawks, Tampa, and I suspect, once the teething pains are over, you will add Avs to that list.

So, bottom line: pick high for a number of years, and have a competent team management in place (unlike the morons in Buffalo and Arizona) and the overwhelming chances are that at worst, you will end up no worse than the "stay competitive" clubs. At best, you will have a mini-dynasty.

Stay competitive and draft mid-rounds, and the chances of you winning the cup are much, much smaller. Do you think Habs will win? The Preds in the near future? How about the Wild? Us?

So, its a pretty clear trade-off: rebuild properly and you will suffer the pain of some bad regular seasons but you will have a far better chance of winning than stay competitive. And yes, that far better chance is not a certainty or guarantee though.

Fans who support one or the other policy are perfectly justified in whichever one they support, but not justified in choosing the wrong rationale. If someone says: I don't want to suffer the cost of bad seasons because this is an entertainment and I want my seasons worth of it and I don't want to give that up for a better chance of winning: fine. No one can argue with that logic.

But don't pretend that the not rebuild (stay competitive) strategy is just as good as the full rebuild strategy. That completely flies in the face of both theory and evidence.
- PT21

Yes

Bollocks.
- PT21

- Tomahawk

Well, (as you know), you can't really refute theories based on odds with a single event, so we can't prove or dispute what I was saying with the Habs example.

Having said that, while there are no guarantees with odds, there is guidance.

In particular, since you feel Habs have as good odds as any, which means the minimum odds for them are 25% chances to win it all, I offer you the following wager.

Not only do they not win, they lose to VGK. Straight up, any $x, where x is 50 or less, loser makes a donation to a Flyers Alumni supported cause and posts receipt here.

All the signage says masks recommended for non-vaccinated visitors but it's strictly honor system and relatively few people wore them. In Uber rides, masks are still required. Most businesses are open at full capacity and regular hours. Shows are starting up again but not nearly as many as pre-Covid are currently running. By late summer, they will.
- bmeltzer

I wonder if those wearing masks are considered "anti-vaxxers" or that they are "anti-science"? People were scolded for not wearing masks when the CDC insisted they wear needed, so now get a shot- lose the mask should mean those still masked up do not believe in science or they are not following CDC guidelines

I wonder if those wearing masks are considered "anti-vaxxers" or that they are "anti-science"? People were scolded for not wearing masks when the CDC insisted they wear needed, so now get a shot- lose the mask should mean those still masked up do not believe in science or they are not following CDC guidelines
- corduroy

Or, they could just be those who have a lower tolerance for risk.

The difference between excessive mask-wearing and excessive 'not-wearing' is this: The former practice does not hurt anyone.

Well, (as you know), you can't really refute theories based on odds with a single event, so we can't prove or dispute what I was saying with the Habs example.
- PT21

Not exactly a single event:

1993 Patrick Roy v Wayne Gretzky, one of the biggest upsets in Finals history.

1997 Mike Vernon v Legion of Doom. Flyers scored over 270 goals in the regular season, best line in hockey featuring the biggest swinging Richard the NHL has ever seen -- Vernon holds them to just 6 goals in a 4-game sweep.

2011 Tim Thomas v Canucks. TT sets the record for fewest goals allowed in a 7-game series against the highest scoring, most talented, best team in the league.

2012 Jonathan Quick .940SV%. They curb stomp that same Canucks team en route to a very improbable Cup win.

Having said that, while there are no guarantees with odds, there is guidance.

In particular, since you feel Habs have as good odds as any, which means the minimum odds for them are 25% chances to win it all, I offer you the following wager.

Not only do they not win, they lose to VGK. Straight up, any $x, where x is 50 or less, loser makes a donation to a Flyers Alumni supported cause and posts receipt here.
- PT21

Or, they could just be those who have a lower tolerance for risk.

The difference between excessive mask-wearing and excessive 'not-wearing' is this: The former practice does not hurt anyone.
- PT21

Exactly. Also, colds and flu were way down with mask wearing. Pre-COVID I always hated when I was in a store or office and some stranger coughed or sneezed around me. Wearing one in a crowded place like a busy hotel lobby or airplane doesn’t seem like a bad idea in general.

Las Vegas from Monday to yesterday. Got back last night after a long flight delay and an awful traffic jam.
- bmeltzer

Hope you’re not looking for a trade or checking their facilities out.

Not exactly a single event:

1993 Patrick Roy v Wayne Gretzky, one of the biggest upsets in Finals history.

1997 Mike Vernon v Legion of Doom. Flyers scored over 270 goals in the regular season, best line in hockey featuring the biggest swinging Richard the NHL has ever seen -- Vernon holds them to just 6 goals in a 4-game sweep.

2011 Tim Thomas v Canucks. TT sets the record for fewest goals allowed in a 7-game series against the highest scoring, most talented, best team in the league.

2012 Jonathan Quick .940SV%. They curb stomp that same Canucks team en route to a very improbable Cup win.





- Tomahawk

I disagree about some of those examples you posted, though it is moot. The Wings win in 96 was with a stacked team from Federov to Lidstrom and a veritable pantheon of HOFers. They did not match Lidstrom against the LOD line, instead they played Fetisov and Konstantinov, and I understand this surprised the Flyers. The 2011 finals is something I recall quite well, and Boston outphysicaled the Canucks as thoroughly as Ducks had done the same against Sens a few years earlir.

But I don't want to get suckered into an argument on who did what when. Its not relevant. You feel Habs have as good a chance as any. This means, by definition, that they have at least a 50% chance of winning against Vegas. You should accept a wager on those odds then.

(Yes, risk aversion and yes threshold of monetary discomfort, but that's why I let you choose the lower bound of the wager).

Exactly. Also, colds and flu were way down with mask wearing. Pre-COVID I always hated when I was in a store or office and some stranger coughed or sneezed around me. Wearing one in a crowded place like a busy hotel lobby or airplane doesn’t seem like a bad idea in general.
- Dkos

I will be going to every home game of the Eagles next season. I will probably not mask. I will also surely go to a few Flyers games, and I will probably mask then.

As for cold and flu, it is ridiculously low. Like Swami said a few months back, I too have not fallen sick with even a minor cold since 2020 March. The bad side of all this is that the memory of our antibodies will wane some, and the next affliction will be somewhat more serious. Elderly in particular should definitely get flu shots next fall.

2012 Jonathan Quick .940SV%. They curb stomp that same Canucks team en route to a very improbable Cup win.

- Tomahawk

I missed this one. Though LA was the 8th seed, a poster here pointed out on numerous occasions that this was misleading, as they had tremendous possession stats and they came on especially well the last part of the season.

That poster took his handle name from a battle axe used by native Americans. Do you by any chance know who I am referring to?

My guess is that the top and the field of hits at goalie are not as disparate as your example but the real issue is that you are not willing to accept any kind of projection on later round selections even three years after draft just because they were not a top prospect at draft time.

This is a flaw in thinking for a position that takes years to develop. Not being willing to check in at a goalie prospect’s projection until five years after drafting is too late in my opinion. Hart is very unusual in that he has already started 95 NHL games at age 22. By your measure anyone who hasn’t debuted at least a small sample at the NHL level can’t be counted on so get another top goalie prospect? Like I said earlier, you then miss at your best shot at another position, for what?...The principal of the thing?
- NC Flyers Fan

1st I fully acknowledge you can hit on a goalie with random pick( although chances of striking out are extremely high)
2) you misunderstood in thinking I believe you need to wait 5 years to see progress of the draft pick. On the contrary that fits into my theory. Even the best goalie prospects don’t often see nhl until 5 years after being drafted. Hart is one of few exceptions to play regularly. Not saying they can’t but probably not smart for many reasons.

3) again the reason to invest the 1st round around 5 years is to give that pick time to develop??? You absolutely have an idea whether he is progressing with each year. Absolutely 100% usually like in harts case drafted plays another 2 years in jr’s goes to ahl for a few years then starts playing some games in nhl. Usually not handed the reigns right away. Look at price and halak combo.

4) the reason to draft around 5 years is in theory when the previous pick(samsonov) for example starts to break nhl roster the high pick is already developing or at least drafted.

5) if you hit 2 cycles in a row you can avoid big huge contract for goalie like prices contract. For example and hart is off a little because he was abnormally brought up early (too early IMO) (not saying he’s not talented) but we’re seeing the major peeks and valleys this year. Anyways had hart just came up this year or next year he’s be on his elc in a few years it would be time to get his bump up contract. (1st bridge contract usually something like 2-3 years 3 Mil a season) during that 3-4 year period you are now evaluating the draft pick like (wallstedt) if we take him. Surely after the top goalie pick after 3-4 years of development like you said you should have good idea if he’s any good and should be almost or just cracking the nhl roster. So if samsonov or hart are coming off first small bridge deal they still wouldn’t be at Fa status so could go like 3-4 year deal 5 mil a season. That’s about right and most you should pay. That gives you that 3-4 years to see what you have in the newer draft pick. And should be the backup for a few years to the starter and be pushing for time if he’s good.

6) so as the newer draft pick is cracking that nhl roster and the first pick is on bridge deal you should be another 5 years down the road and repeating the cycle and investing another 1st round pick on another goalie.

7) so when the original 1st pick is looking for his big free agency eligible contract he will have been in organization 8-10 years. And you already have his replacement on elc or 1st bridge deal with another high pick in pipeline. You can trade the original pick and keep salary flexibility or say that pick willing to sign not extremely high cost contract you can trade the younger stud goalie. Either way you have a major asset. Plus a good goalie plus the pipeline is coming with better chance to hit goalie because you invested where almost most teams won’t even on top goalie prospect of his draft year even tho those clearly have higher chance to hit and develop into nhl starters than taking 10% chance on the other 20 goalies that will be drafted from the field in a draft class.

1st I fully acknowledge you can hit on a goalie with random pick( although chances of striking out are extremely high)
2) you misunderstood in thinking I believe you need to wait 5 years to see progress of the draft pick. On the contrary that fits into my theory. Even the best goalie prospects don’t often see nhl until 5 years after being drafted. Hart is one of few exceptions to play regularly. Not saying they can’t but probably not smart for many reasons.

3) again the reason to invest the 1st round around 5 years is to give that pick time to develop??? You absolutely have an idea whether he is progressing with each year. Absolutely 100% usually like in harts case drafted plays another 2 years in jr’s goes to ahl for a few years then starts playing some games in nhl. Usually not handed the reigns right away. Look at price and halak combo.

4) the reason to draft around 5 years is in theory when the previous pick(samsonov) for example starts to break nhl roster the high pick is already developing or at least drafted.

5) if you hit 2 cycles in a row you can avoid big huge contract for goalie like prices contract. For example and hart is off a little because he was abnormally brought up early (too early IMO) (not saying he’s not talented) but we’re seeing the major peeks and valleys this year. Anyways had hart just came up this year or next year he’s be on his elc in a few years it would be time to get his bump up contract. (1st bridge contract usually something like 2-3 years 3 Mil a season) during that 3-4 year period you are now evaluating the draft pick like (wallstedt) if we take him. Surely after the top goalie pick after 3-4 years of development like you said you should have good idea if he’s any good and should be almost or just cracking the nhl roster. So if samsonov or hart are coming off first small bridge deal they still wouldn’t be at Fa status so could go like 3-4 year deal 5 mil a season. That’s about right and most you should pay. That gives you that 3-4 years to see what you have in the newer draft pick. And should be the backup for a few years to the starter and be pushing for time if he’s good.

6) so as the newer draft pick is cracking that nhl roster and the first pick is on bridge deal you should be another 5 years down the road and repeating the cycle and investing another 1st round pick on another goalie.

7) so when the original 1st pick is looking for his big free agency eligible contract he will have been in organization 8-10 years. And you already have his replacement on elc or 1st bridge deal with another high pick in pipeline. You can trade the original pick and keep salary flexibility or say that pick willing to sign not extremely high cost contract you can trade the younger stud goalie. Either way you have a major asset. Plus a good goalie plus the pipeline is coming with better chance to hit goalie because you invested where almost most teams won’t even on top goalie prospect of his draft year even tho those clearly have higher chance to hit and develop into nhl starters than taking 10% chance on the other 20 goalies that will be drafted from the field in a draft class.
- Stayin alive

I also pointed out and will again for example in my theory so we took hart (top goalie or top 2 prospect in his draft year) so say we draft wallstedt this year (5 years later) and he’s a bust. Well because we invested in hart we still have a good goalie ( I do believe even tho he’s young he will be good) so you lost on a cycle as surely you will sometimes. You don’t need to hit everyone and you definitely won’t miss on everyone. As wallstedt is developing of it becomes clear in say year 4 he blows or injured or whatever you start the cycle over.

Or, they could just be those who have a lower tolerance for risk.

The difference between excessive mask-wearing and excessive 'not-wearing' is this: The former practice does not hurt anyone.
- PT21

Or they could be people who do not want government intrusion into their lives. Ir they could think that the vaccine was curated under OMB watch and refuse to take it. Or they could not trust what the government tells them. Or they could still be fearful of covid. Or, as you say, they could have a low tolerance for risk. You are wrong in stating that them wearing masks does not hurt anyone is not entirely true; when people still see people wearing masks, they may feel that the vaccines do not work, and that we are doomed to wear masks forever. It could also foster people's thoughts into the first reasons I mentioned, lack of trust, OMB, fear, etc...