Great points. I also wanted Ryan Pulock during the 2013 draft.
- SuperSchennBros

That's why the Laughton-Maatta discussion is difficult. In terms of where they were, in the eyes of a lot of scouts at the time of their draft, Maatta was more highly regarded. I can't recall any of the mocks(both by guys like Button & HP and the goofy anonymous ones) that had him falling past 15 or so.

That's why I used Schmaltz, Skjei and Matheson as examples. Similar level prospects as Laughton, but all defensemen. One of them is a better example of picking for need over BPA or "highest guy on board"

i just want some chips.
- hammarby31

http://youtu.be/bMKU47dbspE

I think you have proposed the best argument of anyone so far. With this said though, I don't think we've been picking the "best player available". I truly believe that we needed defense after the 2012 draft where we chose Laughton and ran with things from there. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that we're deep within defensive prospects as appose to a couple years ago. I think the Flyers like Steve Mason and Anthony Stolarz and are building from the net out.
- SuperSchennBros

I think you're mixing two different things, and putting position of need into the equation of what makes a player the best player available.

2000 will always piss me off more i think
- Just5

2000 was disappointing, but with the injuries to the 2004 team and how tough they played, I'll always see 2004 as more of a missed opportunity than the 2000 team.

2000 was disappointing, but with the injuries to the 2004 team and how tough they played, I'll always see 2004 as more of a missed opportunity than the 2000 team.
- johndewar

Yeah, 2000 was a flawed team that went on a bit of a run and got a hot goalie. 2004 was a good, deep team that got killed by injuries on the blueline.

Yeah, 2000 was a flawed team that went on a bit of a run and got a hot goalie. 2004 was a good, deep team that got killed by injuries on the blueline.
- Jsaquella

Yup, when you are down to a top 4 on D of Malakhov, Markov, Kapanen and Timander, you're in trouble.

Their PP was a joke. Literally one guy skating the top of the umbrella until he finally uncorks a limp wrister
- Just5

They should have traded for a PP QB.

They should have traded for a PP QB.
- Feanor

I don't think anyone would disagree that if you have two guys, a forward and a defenseman rated as near equal, then organizational need is a viable way to decide. To use this year's prospective picks, I like Mathew Barzal and Ivan Provorov, just about equally. I rate Barzal slightly higher because he plays a position of deeper need, and if both were there at 7, I'd go with him. Because even though the current D prospects are no sure bet, there's a huge need for skilled forwards.

In the argument of Laughton vs Maatta, I think it's straying a bit. In that case, I agree that not only was Maatta the BPA, but he also filled a bigger need than Laughton. I preferred Maatta then and I'd prefer him now. But I do like Laughton and he was a very solid pick there.

But that's not really a discussion of BPA vs need. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you feel that not only was Maatta a better need pick, but also a better player. Would you have had the same feelings if, instead of Laughton or Maatta, the Flyers had drafted Jordan Schmaltz, Michael Matheson or Brady Skjei?

They were the next 3 defensemen taken, and all are very highly regarded prospects who went the NCAA route-and definitely would have been comparable to Laughton in terms of overall rating by most scouting types at the time of the draft. I guess what I'm asking is, is the Laughton/Maatta discussion really about BPA vs need or just a disagreement with the Flyers over whether Laughton or Maatta was the BPA?
- Jsaquella

Here is the problem with BPA. The word BEST. It's subjective. Hindsight and history really only tell us who is "Best".

How do you take subjective data and normalize it into an objective measure? You use some sort of balanced scorecard. Start with Bill's 4s's, add in other measures around personality, work ethic, likelihood to reach potential, etc. Then you create a scale and weight the measures. And you rank the prospects.

Here is the basic problem I think the team has had in the past. Each team puts their own value system into their balanced scorecard. If I like Centers, and especially 2-way centers, maybe I assign more weight to that. Maybe to me a player making the NHL, even in a lesser role, is deemed a successful pick. So I weight potential to reach the NHL higher than ceiling in the NHL.

I think picks like Laughton over Maata reflected the organization's value system under Holmgren. I think Hextall has changed the makeup of the scorecard, which is partially why the 2014 draft is so promising.

To me, you don't necessarily reach. But if you have a couple of guys who are close in the totals of your scorecard, then you draft to fill organizational deficiencies. Your Barzal vs. Provorov is a good example of this.

I don't think anyone would disagree that if you have two guys, a forward and a defenseman rated as near equal, then organizational need is a viable way to decide. To use this year's prospective picks, I like Mathew Barzal and Ivan Provorov, just about equally. I rate Barzal slightly higher because he plays a position of deeper need, and if both were there at 7, I'd go with him. Because even though the current D prospects are no sure bet, there's a huge need for skilled forwards.

In the argument of Laughton vs Maatta, I think it's straying a bit. In that case, I agree that not only was Maatta the BPA, but he also filled a bigger need than Laughton. I preferred Maatta then and I'd prefer him now. But I do like Laughton and he was a very solid pick there.

But that's not really a discussion of BPA vs need. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you feel that not only was Maatta a better need pick, but also a better player. Would you have had the same feelings if, instead of Laughton or Maatta, the Flyers had drafted Jordan Schmaltz, Michael Matheson or Brady Skjei?

They were the next 3 defensemen taken, and all are very highly regarded prospects who went the NCAA route-and definitely would have been comparable to Laughton in terms of overall rating by most scouting types at the time of the draft. I guess what I'm asking is, is the Laughton/Maatta discussion really about BPA vs need or just a disagreement with the Flyers over whether Laughton or Maatta was the BPA?
- Jsaquella

I am the best player. Debate over.

Here is the problem with BPA. The word BEST. It's subjective. Hindsight and history really only tell us who is "Best".

How do you take subjective data and normalize it into an objective measure? You use some sort of balanced scorecard. Start with Bill's 4s's, add in other measures around personality, work ethic, likelihood to reach potential, etc. Then you create a scale and weight the measures. And you rank the prospects.

Here is the basic problem I think the team has had in the past. Each team puts their own value system into their balanced scorecard. If I like Centers, and especially 2-way centers, maybe I assign more weight to that. Maybe to me a player making the NHL, even in a lesser role, is deemed a successful pick. So I weight potential to reach the NHL higher than ceiling in the NHL.

I think picks like Laughton over Maata reflected the organization's value system under Holmgren. I think Hextall has changed the makeup of the scorecard, which is partially why the 2014 draft is so promising.

To me, you don't necessarily reach. But if you have a couple of guys who are close in the totals of your scorecard, then you draft to fill organizational deficiencies. Your Barzal vs. Provorov is a good example of this.
- TheGreat28

Of course it is subjective. Each organization is always going to rank who is best according to their team philosophy. Edmonton's BPA is not going to be the same as the Flyers aren't going to be the same as Pittsburgh.

I think we were all a little confused when they went with Laughton over Maata. I know I was. But in the end, Laughton turned out to be a pretty good pick and Maata is proving to be injury prone and also has other health issues. (Hindsight is the only way you CAN discuss it now)

The Flyers may have lucked out and went with the right guy regardless of what the fan base thinks.

I'm definitely a proponent of BPA, with NEED being the tiebreaker when all else is equal. But in the end, there is not some monolithic consensus of who or what constitutes the BPA among teams, let alone within a team.

Here is the basic problem I think the team has had in the past. Each team puts their own value system into their balanced scorecard. If I like Centers, and especially 2-way centers, maybe I assign more weight to that. Maybe to me a player making the NHL, even in a lesser role, is deemed a successful pick. So I weight potential to reach the NHL higher than ceiling in the NHL.

I think picks like Laughton over Maata reflected the organization's value system under Holmgren. I think Hextall has changed the makeup of the scorecard, which is partially why the 2014 draft is so promising.


- TheGreat28

I think you are right here. Centers and often two-way centers have historically been the thing the Flyers covet in the draft. I think you are seeing the change toward defensemen as the league has moved in that direction.

I think you are right here. Centers and often two-way centers have historically been the thing the Flyers covet in the draft. I think you are seeing the change toward defensemen as the league has moved in that direction.
- ManCity

Growing your own defensemen is cheaper than buying someone else's defensemen.

Here is the basic problem I think the team has had in the past. Each team puts their own value system into their balanced scorecard. If I like Centers, and especially 2-way centers, maybe I assign more weight to that. Maybe to me a player making the NHL, even in a lesser role, is deemed a successful pick. So I weight potential to reach the NHL higher than ceiling in the NHL.

I think picks like Laughton over Maata reflected the organization's value system under Holmgren. I think Hextall has changed the makeup of the scorecard, which is partially why the 2014 draft is so promising.
- TheGreat28

Yeah, that there really is a BPA at draft time is a bit of a myth. For most teams, BPA just means they follow their internal rankings, which we know are rife with biases/preferences, and tinged by the current state of the team.

Does Mark Jankowski get taken 21st-overall and declared "one of the most talented players in the draft" by a team that isn't still trying to fill the void left by Joe Nieuwendyk? Jankowski was their BPA at that pick.

Growing your own defensemen is cheaper than buying someone else's defensemen.
- johndewar

Dude I've never thought of it that way. That's gold.

2000 was disappointing, but with the injuries to the 2004 team and how tough they played, I'll always see 2004 as more of a missed opportunity than the 2000 team.
- johndewar

2000 was a great team also. Remember they made it that far without Lindros and probably would've won the the whole damn thing if it was'nt for that Stevens head shot.

2000 was a great team also. Remember they made it that far without Lindros and probably would've won the the whole damn thing if it was'nt for that Stevens head shot.
- GOA88

I remember Lindros had been out for a while and he was still the best player on the ice, and it wasn't even close.

Growing your own defensemen is cheaper than buying someone else's defensemen.
- johndewar

You know what is sad is that Holmgren seemed to catch on to that idea really late in the game. I remember arguing that you had to draft and develop 1st pair defensemen back when they tried to trade for Weber. I remember arguing the point with some, and others agreed. The point is, when a nobody on a chat board can spot a trend long before an organization there is a problem.

Dude I've never thought of it that way. That's gold.
- benjichronic

Absolutely. Saves cap space, bonus dollars, etc.

Never forget these entities are still businesses.

Yeah, that there really is a BPA at draft time is a bit of a myth. For most teams, BPA just means they follow their internal rankings, which we know are rife with biases/preferences, and tinged by the current state of the team.

Does Mark Jankowski get taken 21st-overall and declared "one of the most talented players in the draft" by a team that isn't still trying to fill the void left by Joe Nieuwendyk? Jankowski was their BPA at that pick.
- Tomahawk

That's a good point too. Every team in every sports league always declares their player, particularly high draft picks, "the guy we wanted all along," the "best player that was available,", a "guy we had rated high on our board," etc.

Let's face it...you want the draftee to feel wanted, so of course you're going to say those things. But people have extrapolated that into this BPA concept.

http://www.philly.com/phi...ere_is_risk_involved.html


How does this stuff get written?

I think you are right here. Centers and often two-way centers have historically been the thing the Flyers covet in the draft. I think you are seeing the change toward defensemen as the league has moved in that direction.
- ManCity

and big, physical players. And hard workers. And gritty, character guys. And agitators.

Etc Etc Etc

Really, Hextall seems to like players that are poised to break out, and also seems willing to take a risk for a higher upside, both in drafts and signings. I'm really curious to see what they do with this draft, especially after the first pick. I think we'll get an even better feel for Hextall's value system after this one.

2000 was a great team also. Remember they made it that far without Lindros and probably would've won the the whole damn thing if it was'nt for that Stevens head shot.
- GOA88

Maybe. Who knows, really?

So much drama with the Lindros thing. And the "Will he, won't he play" thing.

That Devils team was good and the Flyers had some breaks. It's hard to say how that Game 7 would have played out and it's even more difficult to see if they would have won the Cup that year.

That 2004 team with a full, somewhat healthy blue line beats that Calgary team in 2004.

Maybe. Who knows, really?

So much drama with the Lindros thing. And the "Will he, won't he play" thing.

That Devils team was good and the Flyers had some breaks. It's hard to say how that Game 7 would have played out and it's even more difficult to see if they would have won the Cup that year.

That 2004 team with a full, somewhat healthy blue line beats that Calgary team in 2004.
- johndewar

That they were able to take Tampa to 7 with that M.A.S.H unit of a defense was simply remarkable. They would have won for sure.

That's a good point too. Every team in every sports league always declares their player, particularly high draft picks, "the guy we wanted all along," the "best player that was available,", a "guy we had rated high on our board," etc.

Let's face it...you want the draftee to feel wanted, so of course you're going to say those things. But people have extrapolated that into this BPA concept.
- TheGreat28

Yup.

I'm sure positional/organizational need figures gets included into the ranking calculus... just depends on how heavily they decide to weight it.

Like in 2013, it was huge... its debatable whether or not they jump up to take Morin if they aren't fresh off losing Pronger forever. Like if it's Kimmo that goes down, BPA might have ended up being Mirco Mueller or Morrissey or Pulock.