I've said it before on here, but the Flyers need a major overhaul in their scouting department.

Here is the thing. There is no salary cap for personnel/coaches etc. Why don't big pocket teams just buy up scouting talent/
- PT21[player development coaches etc?

By and large, teams tend to hang on to their scouts, especially top guys like Simon Nolet, Hakan Andersson, etc. And to really poach anybody, you have to offer directorships and executive positions, not just lateral gigs.

From end of last blob:



Fine, I withdraw my aspersion for that particular person and that particular position but it was really a very small part of the more general point.

Scouting and player evaluation staff play an enormous role today in an organization. As the implications of the salary cap deepen the advantages will lie with organizations who can eke out the extra mileage from these fields.

How exactly are such fields evaluated in the industry? If every time some entity (department/personnel) does well, the narrative is that it is luck, then there is no place left for merit, because there is luck in every success.

Other than luck, how can you measure performance? There are really 2 ways: there must be some granular data based metric, or there must be a grapevine/reputation metric. Each of these could be faulty. But they might also be the best we have. Which leads to the following existential questions:


- PT21

This is mixing the fan perspective with the perspective that a pro sports team has. Fans may look at it as luck but I doubt that how pro sports management does. I think it's pretty easy to see how such fields are evaluated. If you do well, you get to keep your job. If you don't, you lose your job. Pretty simple.

1. How do guys like Pryor measure up in such areas? What metric do they excel in? What is their reputation in the job? How does that compare to industry wide assessments?


- PT21

Goof questions.

2. Dave Brown is the director of pro scouting? How many trades have we won during his regime? Is that below or above the industry average? How exactly do we know, in other words, that he is doing a good job? Or not?


- PT21

You're having trouble with this one. Dave Brown is not the director of anything. His title is Head Pro scout. He has no regime. LOL. By the way, pro scouting is not just about individual player evaluations.

3. Do the Flyers have a reputation of aggressively hiring the best scouts/analytics people in the field? There was a young student from my institution who is from Voorhees NJ. A straight A student in a very competitive and quantitative major. Grew up a Flyers and Eagles fan. She is a rising star in sports analytics. She interned for the Eagles during her studies. Why did she end up in Seattle and not here?


- PT21

What the name of YOUR institution? The Flyers already have an analytics staff. You're trying to imply, weakly I may add that the Flyers did something wrong here by not hiring her. What are the details? Did she interview with the Flyers? Did she want to work for the Flyers? Did the Flyers want her to work for them? Did Seattle offer her more money? Many questions before we can even begin to even ponder offering this as an indictment on the Flyers. However with your complete pessimistic viewpoint, you attempt to do so.

4. Why are so many of the Flyers hires ex loyal soldiers, especially of the pluck-and--brawn types? Laperierre, Brown, Berube, Holmgren, Riley Cote etc. Do other organizations also hire so many of their own loyal soldiers?


- PT21

So you named 5 former player hires. This is something that you would rip someone for. If we go through history and look at all the former player hires, how many would be of the "pluck-and-brawn" types? What's the ratio?

I will keep an open mind. I know little about this.

But to my partially educated eye, there seems to be a lack of efficiency in the Flyers organization.
- PT21

You're having difficulty just getting Dave Brown's title correct. Nothing in what you posted above points to a lack of efficiency. It's just pessimistic griping.

So its all murky/luck etc.? I am sure that is part of the story, but surely it cannot be all of it.

Here is the thing. There is no salary cap for personnel/coaches etc. Why don't big pocket teams just buy up scouting talent/
- PT21[player development coaches etc?

In the NFL, drafting and coaching success gets you immediately noticed and immediately a bidding war starts. Look at Joe Douglas, to name just one of many individuals. In 9 years time he went from scout to GM, with 4 organizations across the 9 years.

I don't understand why the equivalent for the NHL is so cloudy. Actually, I probably do. As always, the answer lies in follow the $. In the NFL, the sport is so over the top successful even with bottom feeding franchises that owners risk nothing of their $ by rebuilding and going for the prestige of a championship.

In the NHL, rebuilds/draft-and-develop for long mean loss of revenue. All that investment in scouting/drafting/development would mean committing to some years of icing less than contending teams. No financial incentive to do so.

I find it funny and sad though that fans always assume their club is as interested in playoff success as they themselves are.

It is all luck. You basically need to judge if a players skill can transfer from Junior to the NHL level. Just getting a player that plays in the NHL is hard enough. Getting a top level guy is like finding a needle in a haystack. Theres so many busts out there.

Look at the 2010 draft. 5/30 of the 1st round picks spent less than 5 years in the NHL. Even then some of the guys that have lasted are depth guys like Gubranson, Niederreiter, Connelly, Burmistrov, McIllrath, Forbot, Watson, Bjugstad, Sheahan, B.Bennett, Tinordi, Pysk and Etem.

K.Hayes, J.Skinner, Coyle, Grandlund and RyJo also went 1st round that year if you want to lump them in with the above.

It only gets worse as you go down the rounds. Like I severely doubt OTT knew what they were getting from Mark Stone when they drafted him in the 6th round

It is all luck. You basically need to judge if a players skill can transfer from Junior to the NHL level. Just getting a player that plays in the NHL is hard enough. Getting a top level guy is like finding a needle in a haystack. Theres so many busts out there.

Look at the 2010 draft. 5/30 of the 1st round picks spent less than 5 years in the NHL. Even then some of the guys that have lasted are depth guys like Gubranson, Niederreiter, Connelly, Burmistrov, McIllrath, Forbot, Watson, Bjugstad, Sheahan, B.Bennett, Tinordi, Pysk and Etem.

K.Hayes, J.Skinner, Coyle, Grandlund and RyJo also went 1st round that year if you want to lump them in with the above.

It only gets worse as you go down the rounds. Like I severely doubt OTT knew what they were getting from Mark Stone when they drafted him in the 6th round
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

It's not all luck. If it was, why would teams bother scouting? How a draft turns out is relative to the level of available talent. Scouts can't find or identify what is not there.

I've said it before on here, but the Flyers need a major overhaul in their scouting department.
- KGBflyers10

Why? Talk to scouts from pretty much any organization. Flyers staff is widely respected.

I think fans expecting Seattle to take JVR or JV without any compensation to do so are dreaming. There will be 6-10 players in the category of those 2 that teams are looking to dump their salaries. Seattle will have their choice of which couple to take to reach CAP floor and it will be the best deal not necessarily the best players that they choose

By and large, teams tend to hang on to their scouts, especially top guys like Simon Nolet, Hakan Andersson, etc. And to really poach anybody, you have to offer directorships and executive positions, not just lateral gigs.
- Tomahawk

Why? Money talks. Everyone wants money. I find it hard to believe that only promotions would do. A rich team should be able to simply outbid a poorer one. It worked for players before salary cap, right?

But before we even get to wooing specific scouts, I find it tad odd that there isn't more awareness/discussion of this issue.

It is all luck. You basically need to judge if a players skill can transfer from Junior to the NHL level. Just getting a player that plays in the NHL is hard enough. Getting a top level guy is like finding a needle in a haystack. Theres so many busts out there.

Look at the 2010 draft. 5/30 of the 1st round picks spent less than 5 years in the NHL. Even then some of the guys that have lasted are depth guys like Gubranson, Niederreiter, Connelly, Burmistrov, McIllrath, Forbot, Watson, Bjugstad, Sheahan, B.Bennett, Tinordi, Pysk and Etem.

K.Hayes, J.Skinner, Coyle, Grandlund and RyJo also went 1st round that year if you want to lump them in with the above.

It only gets worse as you go down the rounds. Like I severely doubt OTT knew what they were getting from Mark Stone when they drafted him in the 6th round
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

If it was all luck, you would not even have a draft order. Teams could just put names in a hat and draw them. Just saying.

By and large, teams tend to hang on to their scouts, especially top guys like Simon Nolet, Hakan Andersson, etc. And to really poach anybody, you have to offer directorships and executive positions, not just lateral gigs.
- Tomahawk

Either that or:

1) A scout is available because his organization has a new GM who wants to bring in his own people (for example, this is how Rick Pracey came to the Flyers after a successful stint with the AVs).

2) A scout has a strong personal relationship with the GM. (Example: Dennis Patterson going with Clarke from Philly to Minnesota and then back to Philly and Simon Nolet leaving the Quebec Nordiques to come to Philly because of Clarke).

3) A scout is a young up-and-comer and the NHL hires him first (example: Joakim Grundberg).

4) Familial ties.

Why? Money talks. Everyone wants money. I find it hard to believe that only promotions would do. A rich team should be able to simply outbid a poorer one. It worked for players before salary cap, right?

But before we even get to wooing specific scouts, I find it tad odd that there isn't more awareness/discussion of this issue.
- PT21

That's not how it works it that realm. Historical example: Gerry Melnyk, who'd be a no-brainer Hockey Hall of Famer if scouts were inducted as builders primarily for that function, didn't draw some huge salary while the Alex Davidsons and Ray Frosts made much less. Scouting departments function as teams. If there's a huge salary disparity, it engenders jealousy, territorialism and mistrust, not the open dialogue that you need.

Either that or:

1) A scout is available because his organization has a new GM who wants to bring in his own people (for example, this is how Rick Pracey came to the Flyers after a successful stint with the AVs).

2) A scout has a strong personal relationship with the GM. (Example: Dennis Patterson going with Clarke from Philly to Minnesota and then back to Philly and Simon Nolet leaving the Quebec Nordiques to come to Philly because of Clarke).

3) A scout is a young up-and-comer and the NHL hires him first (example: Joakim Grundberg).

4) Familial ties.
- bmeltzer

Amazing.

The only way out of this logjam is to actually incentivize winning. Losing has an incentive in getting high picks. There is no inbuilt incentive in doing really well AT ALL.

There should be a financial structure like: winner of cup doesn't pay into revenue sharing pool for that year, or something even stronger.

Amazing.

The only way out of this logjam is to actually incentivize winning. Losing has an incentive in getting high picks. There is no inbuilt incentive in doing really well AT ALL.

There should be a financial structure like: winner of cup doesn't pay into revenue sharing pool for that year, or something even stronger.
- PT21

I know a few guys that are NHL scouts….actually ever one of them fit into Bill’s 4 examples. It really is a “who you know “ business.

That's not how it works it that realm. Historical example: Gerry Melnyk, who'd be a no-brainer Hockey Hall of Famer if scouts were inducted as builders primarily for that function, didn't draw some huge salary while the Alex Davidsons and Ray Frosts made much less. Scouting departments function as teams. If there's a huge salary disparity, it engenders jealousy, territorialism and mistrust, not the open dialogue that you need.
- bmeltzer

First, thanks to you and Tomahawk. I always learn from you guys.

Re: bold. This logic was largely jettisoned in other institutions. In academia, within the same department, one prof might make 70k. Another, same department, might make 300k. They serve together in common settings: setting curriculum, writing papers, in hiring and admin committees, etc etc. etc.

There is a recognition that the market, not a sense of egalitarianism, dictates pay. Your specific contribution is isolated, and then market-valued. Unfair in many ways, but that's the way it goes.

Amazing.

The only way out of this logjam is to actually incentivize winning. Losing has an incentive in getting high picks. There is no inbuilt incentive in doing really well AT ALL.

There should be a financial structure like: winner of cup doesn't pay into revenue sharing pool for that year, or something even stronger.
- PT21

At what point does the market itself provide that incentive though? When fans stop watching the product, stop buying the shirts, stop going to the games, ad revenues plummet etc.

You say a lot that when this current boomer esque segment of fans starts to go, the next wave won’t be as strong. Maybe that will create the financial incentive. Or rather, force the organization to dig its heels into avoiding a full suck and rebuild even more so as to not alienate potential new fans.

I know a few guys that are NHL scouts….actually ever one of them fit into Bill’s 4 examples. It really is a “who you know “ business.
- landros 2

I suspect that the talented ones probably leave the field. Would you want to stay in a place where you might be twice as talented as the hack next to you in your evaluation and assessment, and yet there is no recognition for it?

First, thanks to you and Tomahawk. I always learn from you guys.

Re: bold. This logic was largely jettisoned in other institutions. In academia, within the same department, one prof might make 70k. Another, same department, might make 300k. They serve together in common settings: setting curriculum, writing papers, in hiring and admin committees, etc etc. etc.

There is a recognition that the market, not a sense of egalitarianism, dictates pay. Your specific contribution is isolated, and then market-valued. Unfair in many ways, but that's the way it goes.
- PT21

Agree with this big time in a lot of fields. It’s why upper management/ employers have worked so hard to create a sense of it being taboo to discuss salary in the workplace. Discussing salary in the work place among your peers over a longitudinal enough measure is only conductive for the workers at the expense of those with the checkbook.

At what point does the market itself provide that incentive though? When fans stop watching the product, stop buying the shirts, stop going to the games, ad revenues plummet etc.

You say a lot that when this current boomer esque segment of fans starts to go, the next wave won’t be as strong. Maybe that will create the financial incentive. Or rather, force the organization to dig its heels into avoiding a full suck and rebuild even more so as to not alienate potential new fans.
- stayinthefnnet

Sometimes, the market is too slow, or cannot make large enough jumps*. It works best in directed situations. Running along roads very fast and well, but roads already created.

(*For example, it might produce Covid vaccines if there is a huge guaranteed government order and subsidy. But it will not undertake that risk in and of itself, of demand trickling up from consumers, various insurers and hospitals and so on, until it reaches a critical mass by which time it will probably be too late for the vaccines.)

I think fans expecting Seattle to take JVR or JV without any compensation to do so are dreaming. There will be 6-10 players in the category of those 2 that teams are looking to dump their salaries. Seattle will have their choice of which couple to take to reach CAP floor and it will be the best deal not necessarily the best players that they choose
- hfc355

Seattle is not going to pass up a chance to get JVR for nothing, I think its a pipe dream to think Seattle would waste their pick on a player like Haag or Braun. They are taking one of Ghost, JVR or Jake, with JVR the most likely pick.

Seattle is not going to pass up a chance to get JVR for nothing, I think its a pipe dream to think Seattle would waste their pick on a player like Haag or Braun. They are taking one of Ghost, JVR or Jake, with JVR the most likely pick.
- jd250

Does your assessment change based on the following facts at all?

1. Ron Francis apparently loves picks and hoards them. He might therefore ask for sweeteners.
2. The Francis Hakstol combo suggests that Seattle will build from ground up. Not Vegas style.
3. Same message from the analytics hiring.

Overall our scouting department seems plenty good, although I would take a stab at one of Nashvilles defensive scouts (or are they just darn good at developing they're D men) Philly overall, when looking at "Hit" or "Miss" have a fine record, I won't take the Nolan Patrick stuff, He was absolutely the 2nd pick and i would expect most every other team would have done the same in Phillys shoes. He was consensus number 2, and some still thought NJD were taking him 1st overall.

Seattle is not going to pass up a chance to get JVR for nothing, I think its a pipe dream to think Seattle would waste their pick on a player like Haag or Braun. They are taking one of Ghost, JVR or Jake, with JVR the most likely pick.
- jd250

Think about what you are saying. Seattle isnt going to pass up on a chance to get JVR..JV..or Ghost for free BUT the Flyers are willing to give up any of the 3 for free...if they were worth their contracts the Flyers wouldnt be giving them away for free would they??...Seattle is not taking any of these 3 without a sweetener. They will get a sweetener from other teams who are trying to unload similar type players. Be prepared to lose Hagg..NAK..or Braun

Why? Money talks. Everyone wants money. I find it hard to believe that only promotions would do. A rich team should be able to simply outbid a poorer one. It worked for players before salary cap, right?

But before we even get to wooing specific scouts, I find it tad odd that there isn't more awareness/discussion of this issue.
- PT21

Promotions are where the money comes in. Feel free to have more discussion. As far as awareness is concerned, you're going to have to do a lot better than the completely anecdotal evidence you offered in your previous post.

Here is basically what you offered in coming to the conclusion that the Flyers have a lack of efficiency in the organization.

1) You don't know how scouting is evaluated in the industry
2)You don't know how guys like Pryor measure up in such areas.
3)You don't know if Dave Brown is doing a good job.
4)The Flyers didn't hire some woman from YOUR institution
5) Apparently, the Flyers hire too many ex tough guys for your taste.

None of this is direct evidence of the Flyers inefficiency. As a self proclaimed academic and scholar, can you actually offer anything substantial. Maybe then, we can have a discussion on and that might satisfy you wanting more discussion in this area.

First, thanks to you and Tomahawk. I always learn from you guys.

Re: bold. This logic was largely jettisoned in other institutions. In academia, within the same department, one prof might make 70k. Another, same department, might make 300k. They serve together in common settings: setting curriculum, writing papers, in hiring and admin committees, etc etc. etc.

There is a recognition that the market, not a sense of egalitarianism, dictates pay. Your specific contribution is isolated, and then market-valued. Unfair in many ways, but that's the way it goes.
- PT21

Of course those issues exist in academia. They exist in every professional endeavor that exists.

Nnn