So your telling me there wasnt anything the Flyers could have done to address a positional need instead of drafting another Center? Maybe trading down to take Ollie Maata, Mike Matheson, or Malcom Subban? Or trade up for Cody Ceci? Or better yet, trade that 1st for a first in this years draft which is considered much deeper.
- youarewrong

Not to speak for him, but that's not what he's telling you at all. He's telling you that you are labeling picks as mistakes, prematurely.

And are any of those player you named a guarantee of anything?

Someone did a redraft of that year (I can't remember who, it may have been THN) and Laughton went right after the top 10.
- mayorofangrytown

Its not that I dont like Laughton. I do. I just think the Flyers need to take a more aggressive position when it comes to drafting. Instead of using your picks to trad for players rights, use them to move up in the draft. Be agressive B E agressive.

Despite the fact that they need to improve their D, they should take their time with Ghostisbehere. He will get his shot.
- BOSS_TWEED

yeah if this guy is the best d prospect in your system, i wouldnt rush him.

Someone did a redraft of that year (I can't remember who, it may have been THN) and Laughton went right after the top 10.
- mayorofangrytown

http://www.thehockeynews....erank-2012-NHL-draft.html

Its not that I dont like Laughton. I do. I just think the Flyers need to take a more aggressive position when it comes to drafting. Instead of using your picks to trad for players rights, use them to move up in the draft. Be agressive B E agressive.
- youarewrong

There has to be a specific target available that is worth trading an asset to move up. They've done it before. The situation has to be right.

Its not that I dont like Laughton. I do. I just think the Flyers need to take a more aggressive position when it comes to drafting. Instead of using your picks to trad for players rights, use them to move up in the draft. Be agressive B E agressive.
- youarewrong

1.) It depends what assets they need to trade to trade up and how bare the organizational cupboard is.

2.) Joni Pitkanen thinks trading up is a fine strategy.

Not to speak for him, but that's not what he's telling you at all. He's telling you that you are labeling picks as mistakes, prematurely.

And are any of those player you named a guarantee of anything?
- MJL

I can't guarentee anything. But your drafting Laughton in hopes he can become an NHL talent so you can either trade him or another center you already have to address one of the needs your team has.... Instead, you could just draft a need, and not have to worry about trading anyone.

I can't guarentee anything. But your drafting Laughton in hopes he can become an NHL talent so you can either trade him or another center you already have to address one of the needs your team has.... Instead, you could just draft a need, and not have to worry about trading anyone.
- youarewrong

I disagree with that. The Flyers drafted Laughton because they felt he was the best player available at that pick. And according to the Hockey News article just posted. The Scouts think the Flyers made a very good pick at #20.

1.) It depends what assets they need to trade to trade up and how bare the organizational cupboard is.

2.) Joni Pitkanen thinks trading up is a fine strategy.
- johndewar

You dont only have to trade up. You could trade out of a weak draft, and into a strong one. LA thinks that is a fine strategy... aka Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. 2 players that are a result of drafting too many centers and trading for positional needs... both have a cup and are on thier way to a 2nd one.

I disagree with that. The Flyers drafted Laughton because they felt he was the best player available at that pick. And according to the Hockey News article just posted. The Scouts think the Flyers made a very good pick at #20.
- MJL

i realize i have a detached view, but the laughton pick was a fine one. he seems like the real deal so far. drafting for need can get tricky. id rather draft someone that i am sold on regardless of position, and then deal that player when they pan out, than stretch for a player solely because of his position and have him flame out and be stuck with nothing. first round picks are so key, particularly when you have traded ones away not too recently, that you cant really afford a total washout

So your telling me there wasnt anything the Flyers could have done to address a positional need instead of drafting another Center? Maybe trading down to take Ollie Maata, Mike Matheson, or Malcom Subban? Or trade up for Cody Ceci? Or better yet, trade that 1st for a first in this years draft which is considered much deeper.
- youarewrong

So basically you are suggesting giving up the pick as well as something else (another pick or a prospect) to get a guy that would be a positional need, yet wouldnt likely have ANY impact on the actual roster for about 3-4 years? OR trading down to get another guy, when they could have just selected that person in their slot. Obviously they took Laughton for a reason... and its seems to me like they made out pretty well. At worst he will end up a poor mans Mike Richards, and at best, a very similar player to Mike Richards.

I disagree with that. The Flyers drafted Laughton because they felt he was the best player available at that pick. And according to the Hockey News article just posted. The Scouts think the Flyers made a very good pick at #20.
- MJL

I agree with taking the best player available. There were a couple of good Dmen on the board but they felt Laughton was the best available player and given their track record with forwards, they should get the benefit of the doubt.

Not to speak for him, but that's not what he's telling you at all. He's telling you that you are labeling picks as mistakes, prematurely.

And are any of those player you named a guarantee of anything?
- MJL

EXACTLY!

You dont only have to trade up. You could trade out of a weak draft, and into a strong one. LA thinks that is a fine strategy... aka Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. 2 players that are a result of drafting too many centers and trading for positional needs... both have a cup and are on thier way to a 2nd one.
- youarewrong

im confused by this example

You dont only have to trade up. You could trade out of a weak draft, and into a strong one. LA thinks that is a fine strategy... aka Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. 2 players that are a result of drafting too many centers and trading for positional needs... both have a cup and are on thier way to a 2nd one.
- youarewrong

niemi's mask might have something to say about that.

You dont only have to trade up. You could trade out of a weak draft, and into a strong one. LA thinks that is a fine strategy... aka Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. 2 players that are a result of drafting too many centers and trading for positional needs... both have a cup and are on thier way to a 2nd one.
- youarewrong

By the way, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

I was mentioning that trading up/down, etc. depends on what the org thinks the entirety of their organiation looks like. Not just the NHL team.

Also, yes, to point out that the Flyers HAVE done this before (RE: Joni Pitkanen).

Not sure I understand the point of your Carter/Richards example with LA, however.

I disagree with that. The Flyers drafted Laughton because they felt he was the best player available at that pick. And according to the Hockey News article just posted. The Scouts think the Flyers made a very good pick at #20.
- MJL

Talking about too early to tell... There are an infinate amount of possibilites the Flyers could have taken... some would be better then Laughton, some would have been worse. To me it would have been much easier to stomach moving into this draft, or getting a team need. When I saw the Flyers take Laughton I turned off the damned TV because.... another frickin center.

niemi's mask might have something to say about that.
- hammarby31

Yes, it does always end well when we predict the Cup Champ during the 2nd round of the playoffs, doesn't it?

Yes, it does always end well when we predict the Cup Champ during the 2nd round of the playoffs, doesn't it?
- johndewar

to be fair, "on their way" and "they will win" are not the same thing.

Talking about too early to tell... There are an infinate amount of possibilites the Flyers could have taken... some would be better then Laughton, some would have been worse. To me it would have been much easier to stomach moving into this draft, or getting a team need. When I saw the Flyers take Laughton I turned off the damned TV because.... another frickin center.
- youarewrong

Yea, ya know, because the last 8 or so centers were terrible 1st round picks...

Laughton
Couts
Giroux
Carter
Richards
Gagne
Danius Zubrus
Peter Forsberg

By the way, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

I was mentioning that trading up/down, etc. depends on what the org thinks the entirety of their organiation looks like. Not just the NHL team.

Also, yes, to point out that the Flyers HAVE done this before (RE: Joni Pitkanen).

Not sure I understand the point of your Carter/Richards example with LA, however.
- johndewar

I was just saying Clarke was smart enough to aquire 2 first round picks in a deep draft, and hold onto them. The result was Richards and Carter, 2 wins IMO, despite what happened here.

Then, because the Flyers havent been able to sucessfully draft a starting goalie, they had to trade these guys to sign one. This isn't a judgement one winners or losers in a trade, just stating how not drafting a positional need can result in a trades that drastically effect your team.

You dont only have to trade up. You could trade out of a weak draft, and into a strong one. LA thinks that is a fine strategy... aka Jeff Carter and Mike Richards. 2 players that are a result of drafting too many centers and trading for positional needs... both have a cup and are on thier way to a 2nd one.
- youarewrong

WHA?

We didnt trade Richards and Carter for postional needs.. we traded them as an makeover of the entire team while trying to rid ourselves of long contracts and attempt to get younger...

Hell, even if that were the case, did those two not give us a hell of a run while they were here?

I was just saying Clarke was smart enough to aquire 2 first round picks in a deep draft, and hold onto them. The result was Richards and Carter, 2 wins IMO, despite what happened here.

Then, because the Flyers havent been able to sucessfully draft a starting goalie, they had to trade these guys to sign one. This isn't a judgement one winners or losers in a trade, just stating how not drafting a positional need can result in a trades that drastically effect your team.
- youarewrong

That is where you are wrong. They could have kept both Carter and Richards and still went after Bryz. They CHOSE to deal them. Potentially because they would bring back the best return (and they did).

I was just saying Clarke was smart enough to aquire 2 first round picks in a deep draft, and hold onto them. The result was Richards and Carter, 2 wins IMO, despite what happened here.

Then, because the Flyers havent been able to sucessfully draft a starting goalie, they had to trade these guys to sign one. This isn't a judgement one winners or losers in a trade, just stating how not drafting a positional need can result in a trades that drastically effect your team.
- youarewrong

Clarke acquired the pick they used on Carter in summer of 2001.....not in Carter's draft year, which was 2003. They got that pick in exchange for Daymond Langkow (I liked Langkow, but wow, I think the Flyers won that trade).

Richards was their own draft pick.

So, it's not like Clarke rolled up on the 2003 draft and went "Whoa, I've got to get an early pick in the first round because this is a stacked draft year!".

He held onto that pick for 2 full calendar years and likely, the only reason he DIDN'T trade it is because someone in the office bound, gagged, and prevented him from doing so.

Clarke acquired the pick they used on Carter in summer of 2001.....not in Carter's draft year, which was 2003. They got that pick in exchange for Daymond Langkow (I liked Langkow, but wow, I think the Flyers won that trade).

Richards was their own draft pick.

So, it's not like Clarke rolled up on the 2003 draft and went "Whoa, I've got to get an early pick in the first round because this is a stacked draft year!".

He held onto that pick for 2 full calendar years and likely, the only reason he DIDN'T trade it is because someone in the office bound, gagged, and prevented him from doing so.
- johndewar

so true