I only ask because Bill had blogged awhile ago about the Flyers more than likely stating one. And why not?

1. Emery will be gone

2. Zepp could be the backup, but at his age he won't be around forever.

3. Mason's injury bugaboos

4. And I guess this is more a question, but not sure the free agent goalies this year are worth a look.
- MatveiDmitrii

I'd like to target Mitchell Stephens in round 2 a forward playing for the Saginaw Spirit.

If I wanted to target a 2nd round goalie not sure the top ones will be around when they pick but I'd look at MacKenzie Blackwood, Ilya Samsonov, or Matej Tomek.

Or by the time they pick Maxim Tretiak or Daniel Vladar

That goalie who won MVP in the last world championships isn't too shabby.

I think you have to go with a goalie in third round or later.

If Blackwood is still available, snag him.

I'm interested to see what we do in terms of UFA goalies. Zepp will not be backing up Mason.

If a team puts out an offer sheet for MDZ of 3.2 AAV would the Flyers match or take the 2nd round pick? That's assuming the wiki compensation chart is correct.

If a team puts out an offer sheet for MDZ of 3.2 AAV would the Flyers match or take the 2nd round pick? That's assuming the wiki compensation chart is correct.
- jstross

It would be Elliotte Friedman had posted in here

http://www.sportsnet.ca/h...he-last-days-of-babwatch/

Depends for me on how long the deal would be for to make a choice.

It would be Elliotte Friedman had posted in here

http://www.sportsnet.ca/h...he-last-days-of-babwatch/

Depends for me on how long the deal would be for to make a choice.
- ob18

Thanks, It's up to $3.65. That's a little steep. The spot in the 2nd rd would impact the decision also. Big difference between 31 and 60.

Thanks, It's up to $3.65. That's a little steep. The spot in the 2nd rd would impact the decision also. Big difference between 31 and 60.
- jstross

To me it's not a huge difference but that depends on the views on the draft

To me it's not a huge difference but that depends on the views on the draft
- ob18

Not a lot of movement in the NHL draft in the later rounds. Just tougher to nail down the difference in talent level?

Do you guys think any of our D prospects have a chance to be anything like Hedman? From what I know about them it doesn't quite seem like it, but boy oh boy would I love a player like that on the squad

Do you guys think any of our D prospects have a chance to be anything like Hedman? From what I know about them it doesn't quite seem like it, but boy oh boy would I love a player like that on the squad
- Fryman4

Probably not. When Hedman was coming of age in the world juniors, he was compared to Lidstrom. Many people originally laughed at the comparison because he was on the bolts and didn't really pan out until the past two seasons.

Not a lot of movement in the NHL draft in the later rounds. Just tougher to nail down the difference in talent level?
- jstross

I think at least the first 2 rounds you'll find good talent. Maybe even into the 3rd before talent has some drop off.

Probably not. When Hedman was coming of age in the world juniors, he was compared to Lidstrom. Many people originally laughed at the comparison because he was on the bolts and didn't really pan out until the past two seasons.
- KGBflyers10

I love to watch him play. Had him on my fantasy team this year too.

coburn injured

I think at least the first 2 rounds you'll find good talent. Maybe even into the 3rd before talent has some drop off.
- ob18

Ok, so you don't see a big difference between 31-60, but you do between 60-90? Just asking because the Hawks outcome at this point seems like it will make a difference.

Ok, so you don't see a big difference between 31-60, but you do between 60-90? Just asking because the Hawks outcome at this point seems like it will make a difference.
- jstross

It's always a crap shoot and will depend on the person telling you. I think they could go easily into the 3rd at least and find a decent prospect.

But you also have just as much a chance at hitting on a 5th round pick.

What was the actual discussion about? It was about how to approach drafting with later round picks. Where are players projected to be top 6 scorers taken in the draft?
- MJL

All throughout, including the very late rounds. Datsyuk/Zetterberg?

Marcus Kruger, Brad Richardson, Max Talbot, Derek MacKenzie, Erik Haula, JG Pageau... they were all small, top-6 or bust players taken late... they all turned out to be pretty good 4th-line/bottom six players.

There's a LOT more of them than there are Rick Tocchets. You can teach skilled players to play D and check. It's a lot harder to teach knuckle-draggers and muckers how to play with the puck.

All throughout, including the very late rounds. Datsyuk/Zetterberg?

Marcus Kruger, Brad Richardson, Max Talbot, Derek MacKenzie, Erik Haula, JG Pageau... they were all small, top-6 or bust players taken late... they all turned out to be pretty good 4th-line/bottom six players.

There's a LOT more of them than there are Rick Tocchets. You can teach skilled players to play D and check. It's a lot harder to teach knuckle-draggers and muckers how to play with the puck.
- Tomahawk

so u can't automatically build a winner through the draft?! omg but drafting players means theyre good if you develop them they'll come out awesome! they only dont make it cause they are rushed!

All throughout, including the very late rounds. Datsyuk/Zetterberg?


Marcus Kruger, Brad Richardson, Max Talbot, Derek MacKenzie, Erik Haula, JG Pageau... they were all small, top-6 or bust players taken late... they all turned out to be pretty good 4th-line/bottom six players.

There's a LOT more of them than there are Rick Tocchets. You can teach skilled players to play D and check. It's a lot harder to teach knuckle-draggers and muckers how to play with the puck.
- Tomahawk

Not all throughout, the majority of players projected to be top 6 scorers at the NHL level are taken in the higher rounds, unless there are some extenuating circumstances, which is the exception. Therefore they are eliminated from the premise and the discussion of how to approach late round drafting. Players are taken later, for a variety of reasons, size, skating, etc. If team's feel a player is a top 6 scorer in the NHL, they are taken in the early draft. You're just simply placing an arbitrary count on what kind of players there are. Feel free to prove that there are a lot more. It really doesn't matter, my point is valid. Passing over player with a higher chance of making it to the NHL as a role player, in favor of always going with the riskier, and higher upside player is wrong in my opinion. A team should inject both strategies into their drafting. Knucledragger types are not the only kind of players that fit my premise. There are a LOT of different type of players. It was a good try, attempting to deflect the conversation away from the actual topic though.

Not all throughout, the majority of players projected to be top 6 scorers at the NHL level are taken in the higher rounds, unless there are some extenuating circumstances, which is the exception.
- MJL

That's just flat out wrong.

Draft position is about % chance of hitting ceiling, not the ceiling itself.

It really doesn't matter, my point is valid....
- MJL

Lol, still waiting for you to provide an example that doesn't reach back to the '83 draft.

That's just flat out wrong.

Draft position is about % chance of hitting ceiling, not the ceiling itself.


- Tomahawk

Not wrong at all. If a team projects a player as a top 6 scorer in the NHL and they think he has the tools to do it, he's drafted much higher than later rounds. Just because a player is a top 6 type player, doesn't mean he projects to play at that level in the NHL. How many top 6 scoring players in Juniors, wind up as role players in the NHL?

Lol, still waiting for you to provide an example that doesn't reach back to the '83 draft.
- Tomahawk

LOl, I'm still waiting for you make an actual point, if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be a problem to add a counter point . The best you got is asking for names, when you you know they exist by the boatload. To reinforce my point, a team should absolutely take some chances with players who aren't perceived to have a lot of NHL potential due to a perceived weakness, some things can't be measure well, such as heart and desire. Scouts are often wrong about players. At the same time, you have to take some player that are deemed to have a better chance to make the NHL but in a lesser role. Free Agency shouldn't be used as the main method to acquire role players, and lower line players. You want continuity on a team, and you want to bring up players in the organization, because they may turn out better than you think. Older players that you get in free agency are probably going to be what they are at that point.

In conclusion, if you want to actually discuss the topic, instead of weekly just asking for names, I'll be around.

Not wrong at all. If a team projects a player as a top 6 scorer in the NHL and they think he has the tools to do it, he's drafted much higher than later rounds.
- MJL

Again, you're wrong. I suggest you go study some draft history.

How many top 6 scoring players in Juniors, wind up as role players in the NHL?
- MJL

That's my point exactly, thanks.

LOl, I'm still waiting for you make an actual point, if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be a problem to add a counter point .
- MJL

A counterpoint was made. You apparently just failed to recognize it.

Again, you're wrong. I suggest you go study some draft history.


- Tomahawk

Draft history has zero to do with it. It's about draft strategy. If a player is projected to be a top 6 scorer at the NHL level, he's goes pretty early in the draft. You're confusing two different things. A top 6 scoring line type of player in juniors, does not always project to be the same that the NHL level. A player goes later in the round because there is doubts about his game projecting to the NHL level, or they feel he'll play a lesser role at the NHL level, and is therefore less valuable, hence taken in a later round.

You should also take your own advice and go and study some draft history. That way you wouldn't have to need to ask me for a list of players.

That's my point exactly, thanks.


- Tomahawk

We're in agreement on that then.

A counterpoint was made. You apparently just failed to recognize it.
- Tomahawk

Can't recognize something that doesn't exist. Asking someone to give a list of players, isn't making a counterpoint. It's just a week retort, based on having zero substance and just wanting to disagree.

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss the actual topic of draft strategy reasonably, I'm available.

The irony is getting a bit thick in here...

If a player is projected to be a top 6 scorer at the NHL level, he's goes pretty early in the draft.
- MJL

... only if he has a high probability of success to match that upside.

The thing I'm talking about is what you described here:

A player goes later in the round because there is doubts about his game projecting to the NHL level, or they feel he'll play a lesser role at the NHL level....
- MJL

Those are the players I feel should be weighted above low risk/low return types of players, because often THEY are the best value picks in the draft.

Tocchets, Lucics are once in a decade types of outliers. You're much more likely to end up Klotzs, Eagers and Mathers, who even struggle to meet low expectations.

I prioritize a player like Max Talbot, because even if he doesn't make it as a top-6 player, at least you know there's enough clay there to shape him into something else.

If you don't agree, whatever. /shrug

... only if he has a high probability of success to match that upside.

The thing I'm talking about is what you described here:


- Tomahawk

If a player is a top 6 scorer in juniors, that the scouts and teams don't think will be a top 6 scorer in the NHL, then he is not considered a top 6 scorer in terms of draft position. Simple as that. Player who were top 6 scorers in juniors can be projected to be lesser players at the NHL level, in which case a team will take the player in later rounds. That's what you're missing.

Those are the players I feel should be weighted above low risk/low return types of players, because often THEY are the best value picks in the draft.

Tocchets, Lucics are once in a decade types of outliers. You're much more likely to end up Klotzs, Eagers and Mathers, who even struggle to meet low expectations.

I prioritize a player like Max Talbot, because even if he doesn't make it as a top-6 player, at least you know there's enough clay there to shape him into something else.

If you don't agree, whatever. /shrug
- Tomahawk

I agree all except for players who were projected lower, turning out to be much better players, being once a decade ouliers. The problem is you took my suggestion of Tochett and got tunnel vision only looking at "knuckleheads" as you put it. The funny part is you're arguing the same point that I'm trying to make, and you don't even know it. Talbot is a good example of what I'm talking about.

The original post made stated that a team should always take chances on lower percentage players who may have a higher upside than drafting safer player with lower upsides, in later rounds. I disagree with that. I think you should do both.