You would have a point if the team knew before signing the player that he's a 4th line player in the AHL. But that's not the case. They obviously saw potential for far more in the players they signed. I'm having a hard time understanding why that concept is hard to grasp. They don't always work out. Same as drafting players don't always work out. It's not an exact science. And there's a lot of reasons why they don't. Do you really honestly believe that the Flyers seek out 4th line AHL talent level undrafted Free Agents. And sign them to contracts?
Again, calling it a wasted asset after the fact, is easy. Judging the talent before it's known how they'll turn out. That's the hard part.

And I've yet to see the evidence of all the wasted assets. And how it has hurt the team. They have 50 contracts to use.
- MJL

No, my point is, too many of the guys they signed to NHL contract slots end up as AHL 4th liners and ECHLers.

Whether or not it's after the fact is a pointless argument. Reviewing what has happened in the past, and making changes to avoid repeating past mistakes is how one grows as a person or as a professional.

Any logical person would look back and say that signing guys like Testwuide, Brown, Pither, Rowe and Harper to NHL contracts didn't work out well. They were 4th liners and healthy scratches in the AHL, and a couple spent a lot of time in the ECHL.

Nobody is saying they should ignore undrafted FAs. Just that they should be more judicious. If you can't understand that, or want to argue about something you say isn't a big deal for another 6 pages, super. I'm done.

No, my point is, too many of the guys they signed to NHL contract slots end up as AHL 4th liners and ECHLers.

Whether or not it's after the fact is a pointless argument. Reviewing what has happened in the past, and making changes to avoid repeating past mistakes is how one grows as a person or as a professional.

Any logical person would look back and say that signing guys like Testwuide, Brown, Pither, Rowe and Harper to NHL contracts didn't work out well. They were 4th liners and healthy scratches in the AHL, and a couple spent a lot of time in the ECHL.

Nobody is saying they should ignore undrafted FAs. Just that they should be more judicious. If you can't understand that, or want to argue about something you say isn't a big deal for another 6 pages, super. I'm done.
- Jsaquella

Arguing whether or not it's after the fact is not a pointless argument. It is the entire point. And why the criticism is off base. It isn't about whether those player didn't work out well. It's about labeling a move as bad asset management, based strictly on the results after the fact.

As an example, is the Flyers signing Raffl and Straka bad asset management? Not after the fact, but right now! It either is, or it isn't. Because labeling it bad asset management after the fact, is Monday morning QB'ing. Simple as that.

They scouted a player, liked what they saw, and signed him. It didn't work out with that player. How can you look back and see what went wrong and avoid that in the future? You can't. Each player is an individual situation. And player talent evaluation is not an exact science. And the misses are far more frequent then the hits. That is the nature of the beast. Same with draft picks.

Pither is another name thrown into the fray as an example of a bad move on the Flyers part. But what's apparently ignored is that the Flyers turned Pither into Mark Alt. A very highly thought of defense prospect now in the Flyers system. So how was that a waste of an asset?

It has been so over exaggerated. And made into something it's not. The Flyers should continue to do exactly what they've been doing. And that is to use every means available to find talented players, and add to the prospect base.