Fyers have traded a staggering number of first round players, just about all -list below

[radoran]

The debate is whether you want to have a competitive team every year that might strike lightning (see 2004 or 2010) or one that sucks for 5 or more years then has some good players that might strike lightning (see Pitts- they only won one cup with arguably two of the best players in the world).

That lightning strike was a flash in the pan - Cup Finals are not Cup Wins. At least the Pens lightning engraved names onto silver.

(and I did do the first round research on another thread - it's about a 40% success rate picking guys in the last ten picks of the first round)

There are good trades and bad trades. From the perspective of hindsight, we can call them pretty easily. I'd agree with many of your evaluations but...

1 1st Rounder (Danny Briere), 4th rounder and AHLer for Pat Falloon. Lose

2 Prospal, Falloon, 2nd rounder for Daigle. Lose

3 1st for Steve Eminger and a 3rd. Lose

4 Woywitka, 1st and 3rd for Mike Comrie. Lose (Comire for Burke, Eager, Radevoyevic - wash?)

5 Ouelette, 1st, 2nd, 3rd for Adam Oates. Lose

6 1st, 3rd for Versteeg. Lose (Versteeg then for 2nd and 3rd)

7 Williams for Markov. Lose

That's nine first round picks right there. So if we have 10 "wins" (including Pronger, which I would dispute if I felt like it ) we can easily tick off almost n equal number of "losses." If Pronger's deal does "flip" then it's 12 losses and 7 wins...

Regardless, 1/3 "wins" 1/3 "losses" and 1/3 "neutral" isn't exactly a winning record...

And for all of the wheeling and dealing and chances taken the results have been the same: no Cup win since 1975

I think main point of this thread was more "do the Flyers develop players effectively"? From that perspective, all of the deals of picks and prospects would seemingly call that into question.

[Polaris922]

No offense taken. It is just perspective. At the end of the day, my opinion is that it is a path. Lets look at teams like Columbus (cough), Edmonton or even Pittsburgh. All of which build their teams via the draft and UFA and seldom relinquish first round picks (okay, not good examples since Nash and Stall have moved), but you get my point overall for the past 35 years.

The debate is whether you want to have a competitive team every year that might strike lightning (see 2004 or 2010) or one that sucks for 5 or more years then has some good players that might strike lightning (see Pitts- they only won one cup with arguably two of the best players in the world).

Hey we didn't trade Staal because we wanted to. Well I did but Shero didn't. And yeah we had some lousy years to get the players we have now. Trust me... it sucked being a fan and not being in the playoffs. However, it was worth it in the end, as we did get our Cup and have a good few years ahead with a young core of talent who can and I hope will bring us more of them!

[habsguy26]

..to me it's like wanting a bowl of cereal yet you're out of milk, so you go to the store for milk yet instead buy more cereal only to get home to find you still can't have your cereal because you still didn't buy no damn milk!!!!!!!! You decided to get some on the next store trip...

One of the best analogies I've heard. Thanks for making me LOL.

[brelic]

In general, most first round choices get traded at some time in their career. There might be 2-3 guys every draft year that spend more than a handful of years with the team that drafted them.

1990's draft class is a perfect example.

http://www.nhl.com/i...ition=S&round=1

1 1 1 QUE Owen Nolan R GBR 6' 1" 214 OHL Cornwall Royals 1 2 2 VAN Petr Nedved C CZE 6' 3" 196 WHL Seattle Thunderbirds 1 3 3 DET Keith Primeau C CAN 6' 5" 220 OHL Niagara Falls Thunder 1 4 4 PHI Mike Ricci C CAN 6' 0" 200 OHL Peterborough Petes 1 5 5 PIT Jaromir Jagr R CZE 6' 3" 240 Czech Kladno 1 6 6 NYI Scott Scissons C CAN 6' 1" 190 WHL Saskatoon Blades 1 7 7 LAK Darryl Sydor D CAN 6' 1" 211 WHL Kamloops Blazers 1 8 8 MNS Derian Hatcher D USA 6' 5" 235 OHL North Bay Centennials 1 9 9 WSH John Slaney D CAN 6' 0" 190 OHL Cornwall Royals 1 10 10 TOR Drake Berehowsky D CAN 6' 2" 217 OHL Kingston Frontenacs 1 12 12 MTL Turner Stevenson R CAN 6' 3" 230 WHL Seattle Thunderbirds 1 13 13 NYR Michael Stewart D CAN 6' 3" 210 NCAA Michigan State University 1 14 14 BUF Brad May L CAN 6' 1" 213 OHL Niagara Falls Thunder 1 15 15 HFD Mark Greig R CAN 5' 11" 190 WHL Lethbridge Hurricanes 1 16 16 CHI Karl Dykhuis D CAN 6' 3" 214 QMJHL Hull Olympiques 1 17 17 EDM Scott Allison C CAN 6' 4" 195 WHL Prince Albert Raiders 1 18 18 VAN Shawn Antoski L CAN 6' 4" 235 OHL North Bay Centennials 1 19 19 WIN Keith Tkachuk C USA 6' 2" 235 Mass. Malden Catholic H.S. 1 21 21 BOS Bryan Smolinski C USA 6' 1" 203 NCAA Michigan State University

Out of that list, most players spent 5 seasons or less with their draft team (many spent seasons in the minors during that time). Or, they flopped. Jagr, May, and Hatcher were pretty much the only players who spent a lot of time with the draft team.

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with your point -- the Flyers trade away a lot of 1st round choices and the last 20 years has not been kind to them with round 1 picks.

You forgot someone between Tkachuk and Smolinski... Marty Brodeur. How different would the Flyers' story be today if we had picked Brodeur instead of Ricci?

[bryanc]

You forgot someone between Tkachuk and Smolinski... Marty Brodeur. How different would the Flyers' story be today if we had picked Brodeur instead of Ricci?

That almost proves my point. Of that whole list he's the only player to be with the same team his whole career. Hatcher spent a lot of time withthe Stars franchise, true.

[brelic]

That almost proves my point. Of that whole list he's the only player to be with the same team his whole career. Hatcher spent a lot of time withthe Stars franchise, true.

Don't forget that's a two-way street. It's not always the team giving up on the player. I'm sure half the time, the player wants to test the market, or is not happy with the situation in his current team.

[OccamsRazor]

One of the best analogies I've heard. Thanks for making me LOL.

Thanks, actually the credit goes to my wife and her lack of buying me some milk to go with my cereal, the root cause of my analogy...

[bryanc]

@bryanc That 90 draft, I've often LOL'ed about how guys like Mike Ricci, Kieth Primeau and Nedved getting picked ahead of Jagr. Didn't these teams have over seas scouts in those days?? A blind man could see he should have went before these plummers.

True, but it's not like Ricci, Primeau, and Nedved had bad careers, right? They were all drafted so young, maybe their draft teams saw something they needed more (except for Ricci, of course). In 1990, a lot of scouts and teams had a bias against Euro players, the Flyers were no xception to that!

[radoran]

True, but it's not like Ricci, Primeau, and Nedved had bad careers, right? They were all drafted so young, maybe their draft teams saw something they needed more (except for Ricci, of course). In 1990, a lot of scouts and teams had a bias against Euro players, the Flyers were no xception to that!

Jagr was also a "Euro"

Everyone Knows Euros are Soft and Can't Play the North American Game.

[jammer2]

@bryanc True, they all had respectable careers, I just don't know, if I saw a young Jagr skate like the wind and weave and dance around a whole team (you *know* there was a lot of that going on in native Chzec. land) my jaw would have dropped and I would have been highly recommending him. I get drafting Nolan first, the physicality, the scoring touch for a big man. I don't get Primeau, I watched him a enough in the OHL to know he would not be a first line franchise center, despite his size and respectable skating for a big man. Ricci....that was a reach, esp over a talent like Jagr. Easy to say in retrospect, but damn....that's why you pay scouts big time money, so they spot the superstars. Mike Ricci could never skate well enough to be that high in this draft, at least IMHO. Nedved.....meh, he didn't dog it growing up....ha ha...I betcha he did. Scouts overlooked the lazyness because of the high skill level....mistake.

Who knows, maybe they viewed Jagr as a prima donna, bad teammate etc....all I know is you don't pass up talent like that...even that young it should have been evident.

[flyercanuck]

@jammer2

Primeau did have an amazing final year with Niagara, almost a goal a game and more than an assist per game. Ricci would have gone first overall the year before if he was old enough. I don't get how Jagr fell to 5th, maybe scouting in Europe was that lousy.

[jammer2]

@flyercanuck I remember Prims in Niagara well. In fact he had a hat trick in one period against the Spits at the ol' barn. I thought he would be good, but not great. I didn't think his skill set would make him an NHL superstar. He was stiff arming a lot of the Spits, easy against a 17 year 170 pound d-man, not so easy against a NHL vet. Even though he skated decent for a huge player, he had almost no dexterity, stiff and upright....another clue he would not be shaking and baking at the NHL level. I called him dead on back then, a 30 goal guy with tons on intangibles. My buddies thought I was nuts, teased me about it mercilessly.

I'm guessing the scouts had not really dove head first into Euro scouting at that point. A lot of teams missed a sure fire superstar, something that would never happen today. I also remember all the Mike Ricci hype. Anytime a 17 year old kid scores 50+ goals in the O as a 17 year old, it turns heads. I never got to see him live, missed both trips the Petes made to Windsor, but my buddies told me his skating was just "ok". I was skeptical, a decade before I saw Ernie Godden of the Spits score 87 goals in the OHL, he was also a very average skater, the same year, a 16 year old rookie Tony Tanti scored 81 goals....another average skater. I dismissed a lot of players based on skating back then...still do. Ernie Godden was the biggest one trick pony I ever saw. I had season tickets that year, I just *knew* he was not gonna make it. The Leafs never gave him a fair shake, but his skating was so brutal, he really didn't deserve the shot.

[Polaris922]

What do you mean miss on Jagr? We didn't!

As for Nedved.. he was considered to be SO skilled I think everybody thought the rest would just come with NHL development. I loved watching him play and hated it at the same time. So much talent, so little effort.

[jammer2]

@Polaris922 Exactly, the GM's and scouts were so thrilled with his dazzling puck skills, they overlooked the lazy uninspired play from Petr. Unlike Jagr, he came over to Canada to play junior for the Seattle Thunderbirds. His draft year he had 65 goals and 80 assists, hard to pass up stats like that. A 145 points from a 17 year old kid in a new country on a new team...wow. You can see why everybody was all ga ga over him. Only had one really great year as a pro, in 95-96 with the Pens he had 45 goals and 99 points, after that one 78 point year and a whole lotta 50-60 point years. What a waste of talent. Most kids would KILL for that kind of skill, and he wasted it....what a shame to take such a God given gift and throw it away due to laziness.

[radoran]

@Polaris922 Exactly, the GM's and scouts were so thrilled with his dazzling puck skills, they overlooked the lazy uninspired play from Petr. Unlike Jagr, he came over to Canada to play junior for the Seattle Thunderbirds.

That alone would make any NHL GM pick him over Jagr.

The CHL is the absolute, #1 best development program for the NHL, but NHL GMs consistently overvalued players from the CHL simply because they were from the CHL and they were more familiar with them or saw them play.

Nedved was therefore more highly thought of than Jagr.

[jammer2]

@radoran I didn't see the sarcasm ninja, so I'll just go ahead and agree with you....lol.

[radoran]

@radoran I didn't see the sarcasm ninja, so I'll just go ahead and agree with you....lol.

I'm not being sarcastic - I'm quite serious.

The CHL is the best place to develop NHl players - but too many NHL GMs overvalue players simply because they played in the CHL.

If Jagr had come over and played Junior, he likely would have made Nedved's "accomplishment" pale in comparison and then he would have been the Junior Golden Boy.

It's along with the "best available FA" theory - it causes teams to overpay and overvalue.

[brelic]

It's along with the "best available FA" theory - it causes teams to overpay and overvalue.

I get what you're saying, but I think there's a nuance here. I don't think it's a case of 'overpaying' and 'overvaluing', but paying market price for the value available in that particular market (i.e. UFA pool). Since that is a different type of 'market' than a drafted player, an RFA, or even one you have under contract and are re-negotiating an extension, different values and prices occur. It's overpaying relative to some players currently under contract, but it is exactly market value for the limited availability.

[radoran]

I get what you're saying, but I think there's a nuance here. I don't think it's a case of 'overpaying' and 'overvaluing', but paying market price for the value available in that particular market (i.e. UFA pool). Since that is a different type of 'market' than a drafted player, an RFA, or even one you have under contract and are re-negotiating an extension, different values and prices occur. It's overpaying relative to some players currently under contract, but it is exactly market value for the limited availability.

In the FA situation, I can see where you are coming from. And if a GM/team believes that they absolutely must sign "the best available player" thisyear rightnow then they are perfectly welcome to do so. Sometimes the best moves are the ones not taken...

What I'm saying is that there is a familiarity with GMs who have been watching these kids develop (to varying degrees) in the barns in their hometown (or one like it) and have a prejudice towards them, moreso than unfamiliar "Euro" players (I would say much moreso back when Jagr was drafted). And I think that the prejudice (not meant as strongly as that word can sometimes be taken) carries over into later decisions.

[brelic]

What I'm saying is that there is a familiarity with GMs who have been watching these kids develop (to varying degrees) in the barns in their hometown (or one like it) and have a prejudice towards them, moreso than unfamiliar "Euro" players (I would say much moreso back when Jagr was drafted). And I think that the prejudice (not meant as strongly as that word can sometimes be taken) carries over into later decisions.

Agreed. Seems like it took forever for the Flyers to actually have a Russian player when they were flooding the league! And to think both of our goaltenders last year were Russians!

[radoran]

Agreed. Seems like it took forever for the Flyers to actually have a Russian player when they were flooding the league! And to think both of our goaltenders last year were Russians!

Russians are still a good example, though. They are still very enigmatic for GMs - both for prejudice and for good reason.

The second top scorer from the 2002 draft isn't Lupul, Bouchard or Upshall. It's Semin, who went 13th behind all three of them along with Taticek and Nystrom as forwards taken before him.