1. C Brayden Schenn, (76.58%)
2. C Sean Couturier, (so obvious not even doing a poll)
3. D Erik Gustafsson(71.19%)
4. LW Eric Wellwood(41.98%)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
I'm going to keep voting for Read until he wins. He impressed me at prospect camp with good speed, some skill, and a willingness to battle. On top of 4 good years at Bemidji State and a great end of the year in the AHL, I think he can be a very effective 3rd line player.
Honestly, I chose Holmstrom because I feel he is very NHL ready and will more than likely be a direct replacement for Betts after this season is over. Definitely has some good tools that would be loved on the Flyers (hitting, agitation, PKing and faceoffs).
I went with Holmstrom. He didn't look out of place when he was called up last season.
Guys like Read and Ranford obviously have higher ceilings, but I want to see more of them before I put any hopes in them actually achieving anything at NHL level.
Maybe add Kalinski as well? Even if he's coming off a pretty bad season, he's still fairly young and has at least had a sniff at the big league.
went with Holmstrom again but once again I'm fine with about 5 other guys. I guess I just figure with Ben we pretty much know what he can bring to the table and with some of the others there are some pretty big questions marks. He doesn't have the highest ceiling but he has a decent chance at an NHL career. I'd say add Kalinsky, Parks or Sullentrop (sp?)
For the vast majority of all prospects, it's 65 NHL games to graduate or the completion of the season that includes the player's 24th birthday before they are removed from the list. That pretty much handles all players signed before or at 21.
For NCAA players signed at or above 22, they have three seasons regardless of what year they were signed to reach the 65 game mark otherwise they are taken from the prospect pool. The same applies for European players, but before without transfer agreements things got a little convoluted and confusing when Europeans were concerned; teams could hold onto players' rights for years without signing them leading to some bizarre scenarios. Since that has been mostly cleared up thanks to transfer agreements.
On top of that there are some special scenarios where I'm allowed to declare a specific player a prospect even outside of the above criteria, but I haven't seen any real need to do that so far.
For the vast majority of all prospects, it's 65 NHL games to graduate or the completion of the season that includes the player's 24th birthday before they are removed from the list. That pretty much handles all players signed before or at 21.
For NCAA players signed at or above 22, they have three seasons regardless of what year they were signed to reach the 65 game mark otherwise they are taken from the prospect pool. The same applies for European players, but before without transfer agreements things got a little convoluted and confusing when Europeans were concerned; teams could hold onto players' rights for years without signing them leading to some bizarre scenarios. Since that has been mostly cleared up thanks to transfer agreements.
On top of that there are some special scenarios where I'm allowed to declare a specific player a prospect even outside of the above criteria, but I haven't seen any real need to do that so far.
Thanks for the info. That makes sense there are different rules for NCAA prospects.
Why do that when we already have Holmstrom and Talbot? Can we not use home grown players anymore or something?
Not if there's a better option on the free agent market. Sure, Holmstrom or Talbot probably could replace Betts and the Flyers wouldn't miss a beat. But if there's a better option that can be had, why wouldn't you go for it? Just to say that the fourth line center is home grown?
Why do that when we already have Holmstrom and Talbot? Can we not use home grown players anymore or something?
What? Can we not use acquire proven talent instead of a long shot home grown player?
I mean Betts has a cap hit of 700k, less than Holmstrom. In fact other good 4th line centers like Konopka are paid similarly, and I'd prefer to go that route.
Not if there's a better option on the free agent market. Sure, Holmstrom or Talbot probably could replace Betts and the Flyers wouldn't miss a beat. But if there's a better option that can be had, why wouldn't you go for it? Just to say that the fourth line center is home grown?
No, but what I mean is that we have someone already that can directly replace Betts and don't have to take a chance somewhere on the FA market. Even if we don't sign who exactly we want, we would still fall back on Holmstrom anyways wouldn't we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari
What? Can we not use acquire proven talent instead of a long shot home grown player?
I mean Betts has a cap hit of 700k, less than Holmstrom. In fact other good 4th line centers like Konopka are paid similarly, and I'd prefer to go that route.
I'd rather have someone that can play when we need him to, not be in the box all the time with Konopka. So Holmstrom being 50K more is too much? Just nevermind... this is going to create more problems for everyone if this goes on.
No, but what I mean is that we have someone already that can directly replace Betts and don't have to take a chance somewhere on the FA market. Even if we don't sign who exactly we want, we would still fall back on Holmstrom anyways wouldn't we?
I'd rather have someone that can play when we need him to, not be in the box all the time with Konopka. So Holmstrom being 50K more is too much? Just nevermind... this is going to create more problems for everyone if this goes on.
Konopka was an example...
Well I'll say one last thing. Its ironic how intent you are on how we will replace someone we got from the FA...
Well I'll say one last thing. Its ironic how intent you are on how we will replace someone we got from the FA...
Not now, it's just an idea of that we have someone to replace the guy we did get over FA, as in Talbot and Betts. Maybe I just really like what I've seen from Holmstrom. Same with Wellwood. They may be checking line/shutdown guys, but they are still very useful. I guess I'm just excited to see more from them.
it really doesnt make sense to "home grow" these 4th liners. The good ones are the ones with veterancy. And homer has an eye for that (ala betts/lappy...and apparently even shelley has a "locker room presence")
more to the point though:
shouldnt we be ranking by "value"... like if we were to trade these guys to another team?
Value is determined by ceiling (potential) accomplishments (proven) and talent.
I was choosing between Read and Holmstrom, and went with Read. I know very little about Ranford and Akeson. The Scouting Report ( http://www.thescoutingreport.org/ ) doesn't have very positive things to say about Cousins, but I don't know much about that site.
That makes sense there are different rules for NCAA prospects.
