FN Weekend Open Thread - What Should the Flames Do To Move Into the Top-4?

Kent Wilson
May 11 2013 10:14AM

 


 

There's no question that at 6th overall a pretty good player is going to available when the Flames approach the podium in June. We can't know the team's draft board, but at 6th at least one of Elias Lindholm, Sean Monahan, Valery Nichushkin, Darnell Nurse or Hunter Shinkaruk will be around. 

Those are fine options. Nuchushkin and Lindholm are in the conversation with guys like Drouin and Barkov on some draft boards, for instance.

That said, there's a clear upper tier in this draft class where one is more or less guaranteed a future high-end to elite player: the top four - the aforementioned Jonathan Drouin, Aleksandr Barkov as well as Seth Jones and Nathan MacKinnon.

As we discussed yesterday, the Flames are flush with assets heading into the draft, ranging from three first round picks to gobs of cap space. In addition, given the team is just now embarking on a rebuild, pretty much any roster player over 24 years old may be up for grabs as well (and probably many of them under that threshold as well).

Which is a long way of saying the Flames have the will and perhaps the wherewithal to move up, assuming price is no object. The teams picking ahead of them are Colorado (1), Florida (2), Tampa Bay (3), Nashville (4) and Carolina (5). The Flames have 6th overall, 21st overall (Blues eliminated last night ) and PIT's first rounder (25th or higher). They also have some worthwhile roster players (Giordano, Wideman, Hudler, Glencross, Bouwmeester, Kiprusoff, Tanguay) and, if you want to go nuclear, some quality youngsters (Brodie, Backlund, Gaudreau, Gillies). Finally, Calgary can also accept an ugly salary dump if required (Vinny Lecavalier?).

I personally wouldn't advocate moving any of the Flames high-end guys under 24 to move up a couple places, but they are nevertheless an option. You can bet if the Flames make inquiries those are the names other teams will bring up.

So what would you do to move up to 4th or better?

Sample packages:

Giordano + 6th + 21st?

Brodie + 6th?

Backlund + 6th + other asset?

Baertschi + 6th?

Gaudreau + 6th + other asset?

6th + 21st + accept Leacavalier's contract?

21st+25th-30th+2014 first rounder+Giordano/Glencross/Backlund?

Submit your best offer in the comments.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 Parallex
May 11 2013, 09:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

2 Reasons: 1. We won too many without him and took us out of Mckinnon, Drouin territory. 2. 2 underwhelming prospects and the 30 th pick are not enough for a hall of famer with a great deal left in the tank as witnessed by his 9 point series.

1: The Flames record after the Iginla trade 10 losses - 6 wins... 37.5 win% overall record for the season 39.6 win%. Any idea that the Flames played better after the iginla trade is pure fantasy.

2: Two prospects and a first round pick is a great deal for someone who would have left in the off-season and provided the team zero value down the stretch since the team was out of the playoffs.

The Flames gave up 17 games of Jarome Iginla that they otherwise would have had... that's it. I question the sanity of anyone who isn't happy with a 1st round pick and two prospects for 17 games worth of Jarome Iginla.

Avatar
#52 clYDE
May 11 2013, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

1: The Flames record after the Iginla trade 10 losses - 6 wins... 37.5 win% overall record for the season 39.6 win%. Any idea that the Flames played better after the iginla trade is pure fantasy.

2: Two prospects and a first round pick is a great deal for someone who would have left in the off-season and provided the team zero value down the stretch since the team was out of the playoffs.

The Flames gave up 17 games of Jarome Iginla that they otherwise would have had... that's it. I question the sanity of anyone who isn't happy with a 1st round pick and two prospects for 17 games worth of Jarome Iginla.

Like everyone though, we expected about 2 wins in our last 17 after the trades plus injuries. Look at what some of these def got and the top end prospect given up fpr Morrow before saying we got all we could for a Hall of Famer who can still bring it. Regehr and Morrow and Murray, although vastly inferior got above expected returns. Iggy got a lot less than what what many expected. Despite what Feaster says, I believe we could have received more. But, Jay has always been totally honest and informed right? I don't think Feaster knows how to negotiate a trade to be honest. Especially after the Iggy deal and the lack of negotiating for JBO.

Avatar
#53 Kurt
May 11 2013, 09:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

People keep saying Kent's suggestions are crazy and completely out of whack. I believe RexLibris is one of the only who thinks its on par, and as an outsider probably has the most unbiased view.

I tend to think it is on par. Put ourselves in the shoes of the team we want to trade with. If you were GUARANTEED to get Druin, McKinnon, Barkov or Jones would you be willing to trade down... It sure would be expensive! The talk of keeping our 6th AND trading up is lunacy. I honestly don't think there is a trade that could be done, no matter who we include.

So the real debate is if we want to trade up knowing the steep price.

I hope they do everything humanly possible to move up into that elite range. We don't need another Sven... We need a Taylor Hall or John Tavares or Stamkos, and we aren't getting that at #6.

For me the only names off limits would be Brodie, Backlund and Baertschi because that would counterproductive IMO.

But I'd trade 6th + ANYONE ELSE to move up, including the other first rounders. We need the next Iggy, and we aren't getting that elite superstar to lead the team for 10+ years by having volume of 1st round picks. You can't replace a top 3 pick with a bunch of lower down ones. That just gets you a bunch of middling prospects.

Avatar
#54 ChinookArch
May 11 2013, 09:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I've been advocating the idea that the Flames should use their buy-out option and ability to spend as an asset for a while now. This strategy gives the Flames the ability to add a player without giving up any of our very few assets in return. That said, I can't believe the Flames would entertain a Lecavellier Buy-out. It would cost Flames Ownership $30M to do that, and I would expect they'd want a lot more than the #3 overall pick. If the Flames offered this to Tampa, they'd be nuts not to accept the offer. Tampa would instantly get $7.7M per year in cap space and could resign Vinny at a paltry league minimum until he was ready to retire a Bolt.

Avatar
#55 clYDE
May 11 2013, 09:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

People keep saying Kent's suggestions are crazy and completely out of whack. I believe RexLibris is one of the only who thinks its on par, and as an outsider probably has the most unbiased view.

I tend to think it is on par. Put ourselves in the shoes of the team we want to trade with. If you were GUARANTEED to get Druin, McKinnon, Barkov or Jones would you be willing to trade down... It sure would be expensive! The talk of keeping our 6th AND trading up is lunacy. I honestly don't think there is a trade that could be done, no matter who we include.

So the real debate is if we want to trade up knowing the steep price.

I hope they do everything humanly possible to move up into that elite range. We don't need another Sven... We need a Taylor Hall or John Tavares or Stamkos, and we aren't getting that at #6.

For me the only names off limits would be Brodie, Backlund and Baertschi because that would counterproductive IMO.

But I'd trade 6th + ANYONE ELSE to move up, including the other first rounders. We need the next Iggy, and we aren't getting that elite superstar to lead the team for 10+ years by having volume of 1st round picks. You can't replace a top 3 pick with a bunch of lower down ones. That just gets you a bunch of middling prospects.

Teams up against the cap like Tampa and/or close to contending and have guys at their peak or just past like Tampa and Carolina may just be inclined to make deals for sure things. Just because the guy is a fan of another team doesn't mean he is in tune with what it would take. It's not like Cammy and Gio aren't top end guys who could not help teams improve and contend immediately. Tampa may only have about 1- 2 good years of St Louis and Vinny left and want to strike now. Add to that we take some salary and take back a poor contract, it may be what a team is looking for rather than potential. This would also allow them to look at he free agent market. P.S. Why would we want Taylor Hall? Tavares and Stamkos made sense but you lost me on the other guy.

Avatar
#56 Kurt
May 11 2013, 10:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Teams up against the cap like Tampa and/or close to contending and have guys at their peak or just past like Tampa and Carolina may just be inclined to make deals for sure things. Just because the guy is a fan of another team doesn't mean he is in tune with what it would take. It's not like Cammy and Gio aren't top end guys who could not help teams improve and contend immediately. Tampa may only have about 1- 2 good years of St Louis and Vinny left and want to strike now. Add to that we take some salary and take back a poor contract, it may be what a team is looking for rather than potential. This would also allow them to look at he free agent market. P.S. Why would we want Taylor Hall? Tavares and Stamkos made sense but you lost me on the other guy.

Why would we want Hall??? If I have to explain that to you... Oh boy

The kid is 21, top 10 in league scoring and crushed it in virtually every advanced stat category. 7th in ev pp60 league wide.

A guy like that is exactly why we need. And it's what we might just get if we can trade up.

Avatar
#57 Parallex
May 11 2013, 10:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Like everyone though, we expected about 2 wins in our last 17 after the trades plus injuries. Look at what some of these def got and the top end prospect given up fpr Morrow before saying we got all we could for a Hall of Famer who can still bring it. Regehr and Morrow and Murray, although vastly inferior got above expected returns. Iggy got a lot less than what what many expected. Despite what Feaster says, I believe we could have received more. But, Jay has always been totally honest and informed right? I don't think Feaster knows how to negotiate a trade to be honest. Especially after the Iggy deal and the lack of negotiating for JBO.

How could we have gotten more? Iginla would only waive to go to the Pens (as evidenced by him nixing the deal to the Bruins) and that was the deal on the table from the Pens.

Really other deals (all hypothetical I might add) are immaterial as to whether we should be happy about the deal with the Pens. The only relevant question is "was we got more valuable to us then what we sent?" and the answer is undeniably "yes" because the 1st rounder, Hanowski, and Agosino are going to provide the team with significantly more value then 17 games with zero playoff implications of Jarome Iginla because 17 games with zero playoff implications of Jarome Iginla is worthless to us.

On the actual topic at hand, if what Kent presents are realistic examples of what it would take to move up two draft slots (and I think it's way overpriced) then you simply don't do the deal. The difference between who we could get at #6 and who we could get at #4 is simply not even remotely worth what he presents.

Avatar
#58 clYDE
May 11 2013, 10:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

Why would we want Hall??? If I have to explain that to you... Oh boy

The kid is 21, top 10 in league scoring and crushed it in virtually every advanced stat category. 7th in ev pp60 league wide.

A guy like that is exactly why we need. And it's what we might just get if we can trade up.

Injury prone, one dimensional, went 0 points in the 6 most important Oiler games. Tavares and Stamkos are quite a bit different worth mortgaging some stuff for. Hall is not. Oh boy. Advanced stats say we shouldn't want Tavares, Benn or Hamonic to name a few. Wonder if teams have something else they look at??? Give it some thought.

Avatar
#59 clYDE
May 11 2013, 10:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

Why would we want Hall??? If I have to explain that to you... Oh boy

The kid is 21, top 10 in league scoring and crushed it in virtually every advanced stat category. 7th in ev pp60 league wide.

A guy like that is exactly why we need. And it's what we might just get if we can trade up.

Did Iggy not give a list of 4? According to Feaster, he did. So, are 2 of Pittsburghs prospects outside of the top 10 and a first better than Boston's 2nd rated prospect plus an NHL def as well as a first? Is a 27 Swiss goalie and a 5"9 inch, 24 year old def better than Oulette and a 21 year old Detroit prospect who is playing for team Sweden at the Worlds? I hope Feaster does know something most don't because I feel he gave up much better deals than the ones he took.

Avatar
#60 Parallex
May 11 2013, 11:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Did Iggy not give a list of 4? According to Feaster, he did. So, are 2 of Pittsburghs prospects outside of the top 10 and a first better than Boston's 2nd rated prospect plus an NHL def as well as a first? Is a 27 Swiss goalie and a 5"9 inch, 24 year old def better than Oulette and a 21 year old Detroit prospect who is playing for team Sweden at the Worlds? I hope Feaster does know something most don't because I feel he gave up much better deals than the ones he took.

He did (or at least was rumored to)... and then he backed out of that at the last minute saying that he wanted to go to Pittsburgh. Giving "a list" is not formally waiving your NMC. That's why we heard about the Boston deal because that was the deal that Feaster took and then went to Iggy to inform him and Iggy refused to go.

Avatar
#61 clYDE
May 11 2013, 11:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

He did (or at least was rumored to)... and then he backed out of that at the last minute saying that he wanted to go to Pittsburgh. Giving "a list" is not formally waiving your NMC. That's why we heard about the Boston deal because that was the deal that Feaster took and then went to Iggy to inform him and Iggy refused to go.

If that is true, ok. I would hope the same thing happened with JBO as I can't imagine Feaster taking that deal over the Detroit one.. If so, no more NTC's wherever possible.

Avatar
#62 RKD
May 11 2013, 11:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If the Flames want to land in the top 4 they would have to move GlenX or Gio with a pick. Both players are leaders and established roster players who could help a team immediately. However, I really doubt any GM in the top 4 would give up their pick. Especially the teams who did so poorly. Florida, Colorado, TB and Nashville are all looking towards the future. However, I think Carolina at 5 really wanted to win now especially after they added Jordan Staal to their lineup. They could have really used a guy like Gio on their back end on a second pairing.

Any trade involving Backlund, Baertschi, Gaudreau would be going backwards like Darryl Sutter. Stay at 6th where you either take Lindolm or Monahan and build around those guys.

Avatar
#63 Picks & Prospects
May 12 2013, 03:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Calgary should retain and acquire as many 1st round picks as possible for filling their many needs in rebuilding the new core, and not reduce their young assets by moving up in the draft through trading their 1st round picks, besides maybe the Pittsburgh pick for the right deal. Instead they could try to see if either of Nashville's or Carolina's 1st could be traded for a combination of Calgary's current roster players. Nashville has an aging core and if they are looking for immeadiate help with scoring, it could be worthwhile to inquire if a trade including Cammalleri + a roster forward/defenseman could make it. Retain 1-3m of Cammalleri's salary next year if needed to make him more appealing asset cap-wise. Carolina is a bit thin on the right wing behind Semin, again Cammalleri could fit their need nicely, paired with some other roster player(s). With either 4th or 5th overall, and Calgary's own 6th, assuming Jones, Mckinnon and Drouin are gone already, draft any combination of Barkov, Lindholm and Nichuskin.

Avatar
#64 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

I think that what happened in the Bos/Pitt deals for Iggy is quite well understood at this point. So for you to pretend that Feaster actually had the option to choose the Bos deal is just you sticking your head in the sand. Does not matter if Iggy listed 4 teams, there was only 1 he was going to accept a trade to, so why continue to argue otherwise?

As for JBow to Det, not sure where that info is coming from, but I do know that a lot of what I read on here is speculation by fans and cannot be taken as fact.

As for the top 4-6 in this draft, Feaster has said that the Flames feel there are 4 elite players available. That is fact. Do any of you have a copy of Feaster's list? If not, then why do we all assume that we know who is on that list? It is entirely possible that he gets one of his top 4 at his #6 draft position. The Russian is a top 4 on some lists, and the Swede (Lindholm) may not be far behind him if you read Pronman's list.

I have been taping and watching the draft yearly for over 20 years, the only year that I can honestly say I accurately predicted the first 4 players (though not in order) was 1990. Nolan, Nedved, Primeau, Ricci. Other then that, there are always surprises. One thing I will predict this year...If there is to be ANY Flame dealing of picks, it will not happen before the day of the draft. Once the 3rd name on Feaster's list is gone, then he starts sweating, and that is when a deal could occur. But to pretend that I know who those top 4 are, I would have to ignore history.

Oh, and for those to young to remember, the 5th name called in 1990 was Jagr. So that top 4 that you've chiseled in stone....

The JBO to Detroit info is right from someone involved with Detroit. Unless that came directly from Iggy, you are also just speculating. Who on here says they know who is on Feaster's list? In fact, after last year's draft, I think it would be fair that most commenting on here are very unsure of who would be on his list. If you have also been reading, you will know that many responders have acknowledged that one guy always seem to drop. Most, not me but most, seem to feel and hope that Barkov falls to us. Personally, unless it is Drouin, I would be ecstatic with Lindholme and hope the Flames can get him.

Avatar
#65 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

I'll note now that I have no idea how realistic the packages I suggested are. They were more to get the discussion going.

Let's put it another way though - If the Flames were picking 4th right now and someone in 6th wanted to move up, what would they have to offer to make that palatable in your mind?

Specifically, though, I agree that the Bolts seem to make the most sense as a trading partner. They have very real budget problems the Flames could help solve. For a price.

A great way to stimulate some discussion Kent. The Bolts are intriguing in many ways for us to try to trade with. They already have elite young and older talent as well as some coming up. They are also a team that with a couple more pieces could be a very strong contender but are up against the cap .As well, St Louis and Vinny are getting older and the time to win with them is immediately. Stevie Y may feel the same way. With those guys, he knows what he has. A Barkov may or may not come in a help a great deal immediately. Some very good veteran help will help immediately and could put them over the hump. Adding Vets and getting a little salary cap relief would be an even greater added bonus. Offering a couple of GlenX, Gio, Cammy and retaining their contract while taking back an Ohlund, and or Purcell and the pick may be very enticing to them. It may not, but it is also some good fun speculating and trying to put the gm hat on.

Avatar
#66 RexLibris
May 12 2013, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

Injury prone, one dimensional, went 0 points in the 6 most important Oiler games. Tavares and Stamkos are quite a bit different worth mortgaging some stuff for. Hall is not. Oh boy. Advanced stats say we shouldn't want Tavares, Benn or Hamonic to name a few. Wonder if teams have something else they look at??? Give it some thought.

Injury prone: Hall played 45 games this season, missing one to a hamstring pull and two to suspension.

One dimensional: he finished the season with 50 points, 16 goals and 34 assists, emphasizing his playmaking abilities this season.

Also likely to be named the next captain of the team, perhaps over the summer.

As Kurt noted, his possession stats are at the top end in the league.

There are many factors that fed into the Oilers going into the mine shaft near the end of the season. Hall won both the Memorial Cup and CHL MVP in back to back years.

I cannot fathom why anyone would argue that the Flames would be better off without a player like that.

The narratives surrounding Taylor Hall, specifically in some of the rival cities in Western Canada, are not in keeping with reality.

Avatar
#67 RexLibris
May 12 2013, 09:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

I'm not as convinced as others that the Lightning actually have budget problems. Vinik has far more financial resources at his disposal than the Koules Circus before him. There have been similar reports about the Ducks, Hurricanes and Predators, and yet when certain contracts come up the owners find a way to budget the money.

I'm not a hard core disciple of Yzerman as a GM thus far, and in that regard I wonder if he couldn't have his pocket picked (which is what trading down from #4 would be, in my opinion) but I do question whether the money angle would be the deciding factor here. For me, the trump card in getting a franchise to make a move like this is their belief (reasonable or not) of a chance to win. Hence my preference for the Hurricanes over any of the other top 7 teams.

In fact, based on desire to win, the Flames may actually be a team other GMs would target to trade up into the top ten.

Avatar
#68 clYDE
May 12 2013, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
RexLibris wrote:

Injury prone: Hall played 45 games this season, missing one to a hamstring pull and two to suspension.

One dimensional: he finished the season with 50 points, 16 goals and 34 assists, emphasizing his playmaking abilities this season.

Also likely to be named the next captain of the team, perhaps over the summer.

As Kurt noted, his possession stats are at the top end in the league.

There are many factors that fed into the Oilers going into the mine shaft near the end of the season. Hall won both the Memorial Cup and CHL MVP in back to back years.

I cannot fathom why anyone would argue that the Flames would be better off without a player like that.

The narratives surrounding Taylor Hall, specifically in some of the rival cities in Western Canada, are not in keeping with reality.

Fair enough Rex. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I think it was more the fact that he was lumped in with Tavares and Stamkos that got me. He does not belong in that company. I also don't feel the Flames should be looking to draft the next Hall as stated. We are looking for hockey IQ apparently which would be more in line with drafting an Eberle or Nuge. I am being honest when I say that I am not sold on the kid, or at least to the extent that Oiler fans are. There is no denying that he has talent. Yes, he is injury prone. He has missed time in every year and has a rebuilt shoulder before his 22nd birthday. And consider that he has yet to be exposed to the playoffs. Perhaps he is growing out of that as like you said, he did pretty much make it through the shortened season. I also really found it interesting that he had a tight hamstring and couldn't play in Minny the game after his cheap shot on Clutterbuck but was fine the very next game. I do find him very one dimensional. Skate like crazy with the head down and shoot. He also tends to turn the puck over a great deal in neutral ice and has not shown any growth in that area. I hear he was benched for that in Europe though so maybe a coach holding him accountable will correct that habit. There is no denying that during the most important time of the year when Edmonton was in the playoff mix, he laid an egg. 0 points during that losing streak. That being said, I obviously have some bias against the Oilers but try not to. I have said on here before that we need to show a little more awareness to the fact that they at least have some very nice pieces that we would love to have.

Avatar
#70 BurningSensation
May 12 2013, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Lots of good discussions going;

- As it stands, I am happy with pick #6. Assuming the big three (Jones, MacK, Drouin) go in the top 3 (big assumption), they are followed by a second tier of potential all-stars (Barkov, Lindholm, and Nichushkin). One of those three will be available for us at #6, and the worst case scenario is that we are drafting a 6'4" 195lb (i.e. Malkin sized) Russian forward with incredible speed and dazzling stick handling abilities, who had an NHL equivalent of 20G-10A-30Pts last year playing against men as a 17 year old. That is our WORST case scenario (aside from those possible scenarios where we go off the reservation entirely). In the preferred scenarios we land either a bull sized pivot with elite hockey sense, a full offensive arsenal of shots and playmaking abilities, but albeit one with some skating issues, or, we get a high speed, two-way gritty playmaker whose main issue is that he is a shade undersized at 6'0, 180. Both Lindholm and Barkov had NHL equivalents of 40 pts playing against men in the Scandanavian leagues as 17 year olds, making them elite (top 2) picks in most other draft years.

- As a result I would prefer we not move up from 6-> 4, but instead find a way to trade for #4 or #5 outright.

- I would include as possibilities anyone not named Sven or Johnny Hockey. Moving the StL 1st and a 1st from next year for a top 5 pick, and a 3rd would be ideal (if unlikely).

- Taylor Hall wears the wrong uniform and lives in the wrong city, but the kid is MONEY. Of all the players in Edmonton's young core, he is easily the best.

Avatar
#71 clYDE
May 12 2013, 10:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Lots of good discussions going;

- As it stands, I am happy with pick #6. Assuming the big three (Jones, MacK, Drouin) go in the top 3 (big assumption), they are followed by a second tier of potential all-stars (Barkov, Lindholm, and Nichushkin). One of those three will be available for us at #6, and the worst case scenario is that we are drafting a 6'4" 195lb (i.e. Malkin sized) Russian forward with incredible speed and dazzling stick handling abilities, who had an NHL equivalent of 20G-10A-30Pts last year playing against men as a 17 year old. That is our WORST case scenario (aside from those possible scenarios where we go off the reservation entirely). In the preferred scenarios we land either a bull sized pivot with elite hockey sense, a full offensive arsenal of shots and playmaking abilities, but albeit one with some skating issues, or, we get a high speed, two-way gritty playmaker whose main issue is that he is a shade undersized at 6'0, 180. Both Lindholm and Barkov had NHL equivalents of 40 pts playing against men in the Scandanavian leagues as 17 year olds, making them elite (top 2) picks in most other draft years.

- As a result I would prefer we not move up from 6-> 4, but instead find a way to trade for #4 or #5 outright.

- I would include as possibilities anyone not named Sven or Johnny Hockey. Moving the StL 1st and a 1st from next year for a top 5 pick, and a 3rd would be ideal (if unlikely).

- Taylor Hall wears the wrong uniform and lives in the wrong city, but the kid is MONEY. Of all the players in Edmonton's young core, he is easily the best.

The bet is on. I will take Eberle over Hall.

Avatar
#72 Jeff Lebowski
May 12 2013, 11:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

Yep, Hall is a helluva player. No question.

Avatar
#73 BurningSensation
May 12 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

The bet is on. I will take Eberle over Hall.

I'll step to that, how do we want this adjudicated?

Raw points? RELCorsi? Ppg? Next full season?

Avatar
#74 Kevin R
May 12 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

It's more cap budget than money. The Bolts have almost the full $64M spent for next year already, even if they don't re-sign any RFA's or recall high-end prospects (like whoever they pick this season). That means they can't add anyone via free agency and you can bet that team wants to improve rather than run in place.

They may choose to buy someone out I guess, but Im sure they'd prefer to trade away problems rather than set money on fire.

Lecavalier, Carle, Malone and Salo are the obvious targets.

I think Ohlund is another target on Tampa. 3 more years of 3.6 mill cap hit but only 6.75mill in real dollars. Of the 4 you mentioned, I see that Malone would be the most likely to move because of previous trade rumours the last few years have included his name to various teams. His stock dropped last year because when he isn't injured he basically fell out of the top 6. So he is probably viewed as Tampa's version of our Matt Stajan the 2 years. 2 more years of 4.5mill + Ohlund makes 8.1mill in freed up cap space. We throw in a cheap contract back or a inexpensive RFA like Butler & our Stl 1st(20th pick), hell I would even throw in the Pitt pick in that deal if it can get Stevie Y to address his cap woes & still get 2 pretty good young players in this draft + a functional inexpensive 5-6 dman. Flames wind up having 2 top 6 picks. I could live with that.

Hall is a heck of a hockey player & I would take him on our team any day of the year twice on Mother's Day.

Avatar
#76 clYDE
May 12 2013, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I'll step to that, how do we want this adjudicated?

Raw points? RELCorsi? Ppg? Next full season?

It will take more than a year. RELCorsi is more for the fans that love stats according to the coaches I have talked with. All teams take their own stats based on team style and what they require within their system. How about in 2 to 3 more years of back and forth debate, we each ask an NHL coach or at least a hockey guy that needs to be approved by the other. That's 2. Rex breaks the tie if there is one. I wonder if we will be talking about a Flame or 2 who have passed them both by?

Avatar
#77 Kevin R
May 12 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Ohlund may stay on IR or retire given his injury problems. If that happens, it may be a "get out of cap jail" free card for them.

Yeah, he's another hurter. I just don't see Tampa moving Carle or Salo because they just signed them last year, similar to us trading Wideman or Hudler. Lecalvier is just a very complicated deal because of contract & tenure & face of the Tampa franchise. Would he even waive his NTC to come to Calgary? I think he has a NTC.

Avatar
#78 BurningSensation
May 12 2013, 01:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

It will take more than a year. RELCorsi is more for the fans that love stats according to the coaches I have talked with. All teams take their own stats based on team style and what they require within their system. How about in 2 to 3 more years of back and forth debate, we each ask an NHL coach or at least a hockey guy that needs to be approved by the other. That's 2. Rex breaks the tie if there is one. I wonder if we will be talking about a Flame or 2 who have passed them both by?

Yeah, no. I'm not big on using non-empirical means to determine the winner, and definitely not going to wait three years to claim victory!

How about;

Hall vs Eberle across 5 categories:

Goals, pts, ppg, RELCorsi, GWGs.

Winner is whichever player leads in 3 or more categories after one year.

If you aren't too humiliated by the results we canre-up the bet for thefollowing year.

Avatar
#79 MWflames
May 12 2013, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm of the opinion that I would like to see the Flames pick three times in the first round. Whether that means picking with the 3 picks we have now, or moving up from there. I don't feel like moving up a few spots from 6 is imperative, but in the unlikely chance that a realistic option is available you have to go for it.

IMO the price that teams are willing to pay for the top 4 picks compared to what that pick is worth to the team that holds it will be very different. The only suitor I see being possible is Tampa if and only if they decide they are in a win now phase and they need to a team to take on some wasted cap.

What would Tampa want that Feaster would give up?

Stl and Pit Picks + Cap Releif? Maybe a decent prospect as a sweeetener

or, 6th + Cap releif and prospect?

IMO, I wouldn't take those offers as Tampa, but realistically how much more is Feaster going pay? Keep in mind Feaster's impractical approach to his retool is addition without subtraction.

Also, look at the picks that are going to be available at 6: Lindholm, Nichushkin, Monahan.

Look who was available last year at 6: Dumba, Pouliot, Trouba, Grigorenko, Forsberg...

I think there is substantial upgrade in picks 5-7 vs last year, thats why I wouldn't throw the world at teams with higher picks just to gain a couple of spots.

I would like to see Flames upgrade the two later picks and try and get into the range of 9-15. Maybe target Minnesota or Philli and try to address their cap issues by upgrading the pick. I think there's a ton of talent in that range, and the price shouldn't be too steep.

Avatar
#80 Picks & Prospects
May 12 2013, 01:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Given how hard elite talent, especially 1st line centers, is to get and the depth of this years draft, i definately second above suggestions of exploring any possibilities available to acquire another top 6 pick while keeping #6 pick intact. Above outlined possible trade scenarios with Tampa, Nashville and Carolina atleast should be carefully explored. Hurricanes GM outlined in post-season press conference that their main priority in the upcoming off-season is to upgrade and assemble a defence that is tougher to play against, with possibly acquiring 1-2 defenders outside their own system. He also stated that they believe there are 6 elite players in this draft, each of which might turn out to be the best of the bunch, so they didn't feel the need to move up in the draft. Gio could be an asset they could be interested in, packed up with Butler/Cammy with part of his salary/cap hit retained might spark some interest. Predators GM seemed to be very high on their 4th overall and said it would take a lot to get that pick from them, but based on the interview he seemed to be willing to atleast hear proposals and stated that 1 GM had already approached him asking what it would take to get that pick. If Jones,Drouin and McKinnon are gone, given their need for offense and experience with Radulov, it would seem logical that they'll take either Barkov or Lindholm with their pick.

Avatar
#81 T&A4Flames
May 12 2013, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Picks & Prospects

Or Monahan. I could see a team ahead of us wanting to stick with a NA kid. I think we need to remember that teams ahead of us have internal budgets and that their European scouting may not be that grande. I still believe there is a good chance Barkov slips to us.

Aside from that, the teams ahead of us seem to have needs that wouldn't include the top 4 elite prospects. I could see NSH wanting a C but CAR and TBL may rather have a D. I would be ok standing pat and seeing what may fall to us. Lindholm or Monahan are pretty darn good consolation prizes that still may end up being the best players from this draft.

I would rather try to pick up another mid 1st rounder and/or trade up to get a 2nd top 12.the Devils, DAL, and PHI are all good targets IMO. Maybe a 3 way trade could even be worked out to acquire EDM 7th overall.

Avatar
#82 clYDE
May 12 2013, 02:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

Yeah, no. I'm not big on using non-empirical means to determine the winner, and definitely not going to wait three years to claim victory!

How about;

Hall vs Eberle across 5 categories:

Goals, pts, ppg, RELCorsi, GWGs.

Winner is whichever player leads in 3 or more categories after one year.

If you aren't too humiliated by the results we canre-up the bet for thefollowing year.

I will take it but not so sure about Corsi. Hall shoots from everywhere while Eberle is more selective but sure. I can see why you wouldn't want to ask hockey people as you seem fixated on stats but I still will go with it. Let's add points on the road as well as points versus playoff teams too.

Avatar
#83 Baalzamon
May 12 2013, 02:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@clYDE

"I will take it but not so sure about Corsi. Hall shoots from everywhere while Eberle is more selective but sure."

It shouldn't matter too much since they play on the same line 70% of the time.

Avatar
#84 SmellOfVictory
May 12 2013, 02:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clYDE wrote:

The bet is on. I will take Eberle over Hall.

A team of Halls would absolutely wreck a team of Eberles. Eberle has a case for being the second best forward on the Oilers right now, next to Hall, but you give it two years and I'd be surprised if he's not 3rd or 4th.

Avatar
#85 BJ
May 12 2013, 04:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Clyde and others

I think a lot of people don't understand the Iggy trade. The Boston first rounder was conditional on Iggy resigning there. BOS has to resign Rask so that was not going to happen.

What the Flames needed this summer and what Feaster is after is first round picks and cap space.

First Round picks & Cap space = Flexibility.

Not a knock on Khocklachev but he would likely be a 2nd/ 3rd line centre tops. We have enough of those. We need to draft our own top line talent or acquire it in a trade.

I'd like to know what Detroit was offering though, but again I am under the impression that it didn't include their first round pick.

I think it is a testament to the league wide consensus on how deep this draft is when so few top teams are willing to part with their first round picks.

From what I have read about the top 30 is that there are some potential top pairing Dmen and Top 6 forwards right up and possibly into the second round.

Avatar
#86 negrilcowboy
May 12 2013, 04:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

send the blues back their first rounder for halak.

Avatar
#87 Rockmorton65
May 12 2013, 05:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Kent, I'm a little confused. You said that the St Louis pick would be 21st. How is that determined. I thought it was based on elimination from the playoffs. By my calculations, that pick should be 17, as the only two teams eliminated before the Blues were the Canucks and the Canadiens. If thats the case, then wouldnt Vancouver get 15, Montreal 16, and St Louis 17? What am I missing.

BTW - not the first time I've been confused, not the last. lol

Avatar
#88 Baalzamon
May 12 2013, 06:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rockmorton65

Also determined by regular season standings points and division leadership. Pick 30 goes to the SC champ, 29 to the runner up, 28 and 27 to conference finalists, and 15-26 to other playoff teams, in the order of RS standings points, with division leaders getting the latest picks.

That's why Vancouver picked 26th last year even though they lost in the first round. They were the President's trophy winners, and thus automatically got 26th when they were eliminated.

Avatar
#89 Kevin R
May 12 2013, 06:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rockmorton65 wrote:

Kent, I'm a little confused. You said that the St Louis pick would be 21st. How is that determined. I thought it was based on elimination from the playoffs. By my calculations, that pick should be 17, as the only two teams eliminated before the Blues were the Canucks and the Canadiens. If thats the case, then wouldnt Vancouver get 15, Montreal 16, and St Louis 17? What am I missing.

BTW - not the first time I've been confused, not the last. lol

I'm not 100% sure myself, but from others who have looked up how the playoff teams get seeded, it was based on the 1st round eliminations seeded out 15 thru 22. The division winners took the worst seeding & then after that it was based on record. Vanc & Montreal were division winners, so their pick "has" to be after the St Louis pick. Now if Wash & Anaheim lose, they are division winners as well. Suddenly that St Louis pick is 18th with Minny, NYI, & loser of Tor/Bos pick before Stl. So right now worst case is 20th & best case is 18th.

I will not be offended if someone says Im wrong & corrects me o this.

Avatar
#90 Veggie Dog
May 12 2013, 06:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BurningSensation

Your points about one of Barkov, Nichuskin and Lindholm being the worst case have swayed me. Unless someone blows Feaster away with something, I hope our picks stay the same.

Avatar
#91 KH44
May 12 2013, 07:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Tampa's 4th overall and Vincent Lecavalier for the Flames 21st overall, Pittsburgh's (25th to 30th. Tampa has a cap crunch right now, and will have a crunch again in a few years. They have a superstar in Stamkos, they have young blocks like hedman, bishop, killorn, barberio, Connolly. Adding a barkov or a nichushkin doesn't necessarily increase the timeline. By freeing up cap space and adding a couple late round picks, they have the freedom to resign their guys and get the support players they need to take advantage of the last great years of Martin St Louis, of Stamkos' rise. The Flames, on the other hand, have huge amounts of cap space, deep pockets and need young assets. The Flames taking barkov, mackinnon or druin (depending who falls to them)and being able to add a defensemen like nurse or a center like Monahan, would help the rebuild immensely, adding the chance to insure against a pick failing. I desperately pray Feaster stays away from Lindholm, Nichushkin and Lazar, though. The more I hear, the scarier they sound.

Avatar
#92 Baalzamon
May 12 2013, 08:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@KH44

... what exactly is scary about Lindholm?

Avatar
#93 suba steve
May 12 2013, 08:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@clYDE

Well, if it's "right from someone involved with Detroit" then how can that not be good enough for me? That is just ridiculous (sorry, but that's how it sounds). There is still confusion on this site on whether Boston's offered first (for Iggy) was or wasn't conditional, so I'm not giving any merit to anything "right from someone involved with Detroit".

My thought that everyone (meaning most posters) is assuming they know Feaster's list is due to all the speculation on what it will take to move up 2 or 3 spots. My position is that he may very well not need to move up to get one of his 4, and he should only try to complete such a deal after 3 of his top 4 are gone (but have the preliminary work in place), if he can find a suitable partner for that trade. If not, he still has good options to choose from.

Avatar
#94 Derzie
May 12 2013, 08:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The less rope we give Feaster and Co. the less likely they are to hang themselves. Keep the 3 picks and do your homework. No fancy footwork. We don't need boat anchor contracts and players. The negative impact on team morale is not worth it. Keep your drafting feet moving, crash the podium and keep it simple. Simmer-101.

Avatar
#95 suba steve
May 12 2013, 09:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Derzie wrote:

The less rope we give Feaster and Co. the less likely they are to hang themselves. Keep the 3 picks and do your homework. No fancy footwork. We don't need boat anchor contracts and players. The negative impact on team morale is not worth it. Keep your drafting feet moving, crash the podium and keep it simple. Simmer-101.

That is a sensible position. Vinny's deal is just a bit much to swallow, Luongo and Bryz too. This team can swallow some bad deals to gain additional youth, but there has to be a limit. Those deals need to involve good players who's only major problem is that they are overpaid (but not Vinny overpaid).

Avatar
#96 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

"I will take it but not so sure about Corsi. Hall shoots from everywhere while Eberle is more selective but sure."

It shouldn't matter too much since they play on the same line 70% of the time.

True.

Avatar
#97 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

Well, if it's "right from someone involved with Detroit" then how can that not be good enough for me? That is just ridiculous (sorry, but that's how it sounds). There is still confusion on this site on whether Boston's offered first (for Iggy) was or wasn't conditional, so I'm not giving any merit to anything "right from someone involved with Detroit".

My thought that everyone (meaning most posters) is assuming they know Feaster's list is due to all the speculation on what it will take to move up 2 or 3 spots. My position is that he may very well not need to move up to get one of his 4, and he should only try to complete such a deal after 3 of his top 4 are gone (but have the preliminary work in place), if he can find a suitable partner for that trade. If not, he still has good options to choose from.

Scuba, you don't have to believe me on the Detroit thing. But, it is true. My source is solid and informed. I won't give up the names so it is fair for you to question me. The Boston GM himself said it was not a conditional 1st.

Avatar
#98 BurningSensation
May 12 2013, 09:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I had previously considered a Vinny trade as being something worth considering, but it is REALLY RIDICULOUS, and buying him out would be a $30M ht - unless the players coming back are significant, just the TBay 1st shouldn't be enough.

The equation changes a little if you can get TBay to eat $2M a year and send us the pick, or sweeten the deal by adding a Connolly into it. At some point though, I think they just decide to buy him out themselves (or buy out a combination of Malone, Ohlund retiring, and one more), Vinnik has that kind of coin in his couch cushions.

@clYDE

I'm not sure adding in more categories is going to help your case, but I agree to the terms as we've outlined them, the winner has the player who excels in the most categories.

Avatar
#99 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BJ wrote:

@ Clyde and others

I think a lot of people don't understand the Iggy trade. The Boston first rounder was conditional on Iggy resigning there. BOS has to resign Rask so that was not going to happen.

What the Flames needed this summer and what Feaster is after is first round picks and cap space.

First Round picks & Cap space = Flexibility.

Not a knock on Khocklachev but he would likely be a 2nd/ 3rd line centre tops. We have enough of those. We need to draft our own top line talent or acquire it in a trade.

I'd like to know what Detroit was offering though, but again I am under the impression that it didn't include their first round pick.

I think it is a testament to the league wide consensus on how deep this draft is when so few top teams are willing to part with their first round picks.

From what I have read about the top 30 is that there are some potential top pairing Dmen and Top 6 forwards right up and possibly into the second round.

Hi BJ, Good points. Very good. The Boston GM says there was no condition on the 1st round pick. So, is Feaster fabricating here or not? The original offer for JBO was this: Jurco, Oulette, 2nd. My buddies involved in Detroit said Feaster did not come back at them. They offered Jarncrok, Oulette and a 1st for Kulikov after JBO was gone and he said since JBO was their 1st choice, they would have gone there with the Flames too.

Avatar
#100 clYDE
May 12 2013, 09:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I had previously considered a Vinny trade as being something worth considering, but it is REALLY RIDICULOUS, and buying him out would be a $30M ht - unless the players coming back are significant, just the TBay 1st shouldn't be enough.

The equation changes a little if you can get TBay to eat $2M a year and send us the pick, or sweeten the deal by adding a Connolly into it. At some point though, I think they just decide to buy him out themselves (or buy out a combination of Malone, Ohlund retiring, and one more), Vinnik has that kind of coin in his couch cushions.

@clYDE

I'm not sure adding in more categories is going to help your case, but I agree to the terms as we've outlined them, the winner has the player who excels in the most categories.

I do want those 2 categories though.

Comments are closed for this article.