The New New Unending Flyers thread

[Austinfan]

Pelletier was an odd decision, even if he goes to arbitration, how much is he going to get and they can still decline it, so no risk to the team.
Makes me think they have a few FA targets lined up and want the roster room for the bottom six
9 forwards set (Michkov, Zegras, TK, Couts, Tippett, Brink, Couts, Foerster, Hathaway).
DeLo isn't a NHL player at this point.
Martone, Jett, etc. are probably camp decisions.
So you'd think they'd want 2-3 more forwards going into camp so they don't have to rush anyone.

[Docs]

Team posted about two hours ago the roster and schedule. Wednesday to Sunday.

[LegoDoom]

Maybe they can't make it seem rational to you but frankly there were almost no mocks that had Martone falling to 6 and they didn't trade a a good C prior to the draft.

In many of the lists he was in the top 5.

I said they had to take Martone. I also wanted Eklund at #6 (and eventually conceded the rest of the NHL doesn't think that way). Hagens at #6 and Eklund trading up. Prove me I'm wrong.

It just flips the strength of the wingers and centers.

[Austinfan]

I think in terms of lines, if you have an elite winger paired with a two way center, to me that's as good as an elite offensive center paired with a two way wing.
Think the difference G made for Couts, that was an elite line, with either Voracek or TK.
Couts without G has been a 2C caliber center.

I thnk they see Nesbitt as a big physical center who can score around the net, and pair him with play making wings. With big centers you can get away with smaller, quick wings like Brink or Barkey.

When you shift from 1C/1D to first line/first pair, there are more than one way to skin a cat.

It's easier when you have an elite center (McDavid) or D-man (Hedman in his prime) but even McDavid And Draisaitl only played about 18-19 minutes at ES (out of about 50). The bottom six are still playing 23 minutes at ES. Same on defense, where Edmonton rode its top 4, but the ur 3rd pair is still playing 12-13 minutes.

FLA had more balance, their scoring was spread over 9 forwards who played 13-16 minutes at ES. They had a better 3rd pair on defense, who played a couple minutes more thus reducing the workload of the top 4 by a minute a night.

So if you can't land a superstar, build up quality depth and play everyone and keep their legs fresh.

[LegoDoom]

FLA has a top 3 player. Yes, they are more balanced and definitely better coached, but let's not pretend they don't have elite players.

Couts without G has been hurt.

At #12 the Flyers should be looking to add real talent and not someone that cleans up around the net.

[Docs]

Hagens at #6 and Eklund trading up. Prove me I'm wrong

I think that this would have been the ideal scenario with 20/20 vision, knowing how the board fell. However, the Flyers did not have the benefit of confirming Eklund would be available and that Pittsburgh would make their pick available when the flyers were picking sixth. Typically you have the framework of a deal in place contingent on the team you’re trading with not having a player they love fall to them. For instance, if McQueen was not taken by the ducks, I feel it’s a good bet that the Penguins would have drafted him. And maybe in that spot they don’t trade back because they like the other guy too.

That’s my long way of saying that I think the flyers should have drafted Martone at six because that was the best choice given the information they had at the time. At 12, given the information I have today, I believe they should have taken Eklund. And I believe that because I believe Eklund is the only person available with top line upside and they should have still been drafting best player available. If for some reason, they believed Nesbitt had 1C potential, then I’m OK with that pick. If they thought one of the defenders had one D potential then I would’ve been OK with that pick. If you have too many talented wings in your system, you either have great depth with your lines or better tradeable assets. If they need to flip someone in two years i believe Eklund will have a better return than Nesbitt.

That said, i think they recovered quite well on the second round and hopefully one or two of these guys out performs their forecast.

[zambonir]

For better or worse I think they were taking the BPA as they saw it, with position not a factor either time. Last year you could wonder if the choice was affected by the Gauthier situation, rather than that they really believed Luchanko was BPA, but this year, right or wrong, they just didn't like Eklund as much, and neither did three other teams after them.

I feel like the hindsight in a couple of years will end up being whether the trade-up got them the best value. Like, what if Horcoff and Brzustewicz end up being better than Nesbitt?

We can also wonder what might have happened had the Pens not taken the deal. Could they have traded up to 15 or 16, maybe for less (the first and 40 instead of 31) and taken Eklund? But supposedly they did the deal because they wanted Nesbitt and thought he was going to go soon after 12.

[phillychuck]

Two things I think Howie Roseman has shown in drafting is that you are better off, always, taking the best player available according to your scouts, almost regardless of fit. Jalen Hurts is the prime example. The other maxim that I think translates to other drafts in other sports is to zig when other teams are zagging. The Flyers did neither with the Nesbitt pick, but still managed a very good draft because I think they hit the right players in round 2. That could be great scouting or luck, who knows. Sign the Russian dude and find a goalie, and hockey would be fun again in Philly.

[zambonir]

Seven years, $8.5 million AAV

NHL contract grades: Blue Jackets massively overpay Ivan Provorov in confounding...

the Blue Jackets should expect him to be a cromulent second-pair defensemen for most of his contract.

[zambonir]

Friedman and San Fillippo are both reporting the Flyers have real interest in Corey Perry. Not sure why he would have interest in them. I suppose the answer could be money. And then you can trade him if it ends up not being a playoff year. But clearly they want it to be a playoff year.

[bigegypt0417]

most outlets report he's going to Dallas or LA.

[Docs]

I feel like the hindsight in a couple of years will end up being whether the trade-up got them the best value. Like, what if Horcoff and Brzustewicz end up being better than Nesbitt?

I hope that I can explain this well, in my view, results based analysis is not always productive and needs a qualifier. If a player that nobody saw coming ends up with a HOF career, it does not mean that the teams that passed on him made a mistake on draft day. An example where I would agree with you would be Randy Moss. Everyone knew he was the best player available and most of the teams that passed on him made a mistake - if they did their homework they would have known that he was a model citizen after getting kicked out of FSU and very low risk high reward. But nobody made a mistake passing on Mike Piazza in the draft, he just surprised everyone.

[zambonir]

That was Jeff Marek's report yesterday these reports are more recent. Still seems unlikely (as the reporters saying it have also said). I'd be surprised if Dallas can fit him back in even with the incentive option.

[zambonir]

Well, I agree with your general point if you are talking about just passing up one player for another player, whether it's five picks apart or 20 picks apart. Nobody really thinks a bunch of teams blew it not taking MIke Trout in 2009 (the good news is, the Phillies definitely didn't, they didn't even have a pick, and would have picked behind the Angels anyway). At the same time I think it will be totally fair to question the Flyers' assesment of the BPA if the 14th or 16th pick ends up being better (and the same if Blake Fiddler ends up being better than Amico).

But for me this is more about what the best use and value was of the two first-round picks. I'm not saying they should have taken Eklund or anyone else at 12, just wondering what they might have done/gotten/given up had they only traded up to 16. Or not traded up at all. It's also entirely possible they picked two guys in the second who will outperform two guys taken in the late first. Only one way to find out now.

[bigegypt0417]

This seems to be a good article on the events...

Like it or not there seems to have been teams trying to trade up to get the same player.

Did Flyers reach to draft Jack Nesbitt?

[VoteForKalas]

At #12 the Flyers should be looking to add real talent and not someone that cleans up around the net.

A lot of very good players clean up in front of the net. Having players who can drive the net and finish consistently is a good thing or, when they do not finish, open up chances for their linemates to finish.

[Austinfan]

People talk about BPA as if it only involves scoring.
Eklund will outscore Nesbitt, but undersized wings who score are easier to find than full-sized centers.

Think baseball, which is more valuable, a CF who is plus defensively with a .800 OPS or a 1B who is average defensively with a ..900 OPS.

Full-sized centers have become the premium forward in the NHL, every full-sized center in this draft was taken 10+ slots earlier than the "consensus." But it's not just the draft, look at the payments for full sized centers at the TDL, look at the contracts given out before and during FA.

The other position with a similar value premium are big mobile RHDs.

So when you think BPA, think in terms of role (big centers who can skate can let you match up against top centers, most of whom are bigger than 6'0 200) and scarcity (big mobile RHDs are hard to find).

There are only a few undersized scorers who can elevate their game in the POs, it's no accident FLA has two of them, Rodriguez and Marchand, both of whom have a hit rate above many bigger forwards. So it's not merely a matter of size, attitude matters. Briere is very aware of this aspect of size.

One thing O'Conner noted about the Flyers draft was the common theme wasn't size, but compete level and physicality.
And the players Briere has removed from the "Island?" Generally softer players who don't go to the net or the corners.

Does that mean trading up for Nesbitt was a good move?
Time will tell. If he fills out, improves his skating and plays in beast mode, he can score like a 2C but have a 1C impact.
If he ends up as a big center with below average speed he may have a career like Coyle, basically a 3C.

[Docs]

Consensus seems to be that only about 20 players were in the first round grade range, and many teams (not national media rankings) had Nesbitt in that top 20 tier. There are also many reports that other teams planned on drafting him if he was available to them in that range. I also heard multiple people say that the next tier (picks 20ish to 45/50ish) were a comparable tier and that it came down to eye of the beholder in that range. Based on that, I am only disagreeing with your original comment comparing Nesbitt to Horcoff and/or Brzustewicz in three years. I agree with your follow up of comparing Nesbitt to other players available in the same tier which I would include Carter Bear, Bradeden Cootes, Victor Eklund or Cole Reschny. I also agree that its fair to look at Fiddler vs Amico down the road.

That said, I think Nesbitt's floor is higher than the floor of those in that 20-50 range, so the decision to trade up comes down to did the Flyers want someone with high probability of making an NHL roster or did they want two players floor may not have made an NHL roster. After that, its a different decision to analyze did they take the right person in that new range. At least that's how I see it.

[zambonir]

I have no problem with the pick. The Flyers believe Nesbitt can be another Couturier or close to it. A 2C or a high-end 3C. If they're wrong about that floor they got it very wrong, if they're right about the ceiling they got it very right with plenty in-between.

But I'm not comparing Nesbitt too those other guys 1 to 1, but rather, 1 to 2. If he turns out to be a credible third-liner and two players taken between 22 and 32 also turn out to be credible third-liners, they didn't get great value.

So much of this discourse, here and elsewhere, is based on things we don't really know anyway, or on mock drafts that aren't based on a whole lot. That seems to be the gripe about Nesbitt, that at one point it was thought he could be gotten at 22 (but by who?), just as Eklund was once considered a single-digit pick.

[bigegypt0417]

the one thing I believe most reports said about Nesbitt is if he develops to be an NHL 2C then he's the kind every team needs. A good compliment to a 1C.

Again...he was rising for some teams so we'll have to see how it plays out.