Random Thoughts - May 13, 2013, On Why the Flames Should Consider Moving Up

Kent Wilson
May 13 2013 09:08AM

 


 

As you can see from the weekend open thread, the possibility of the Flames trading down into the top-5 is a bit contentious. It's hard to say how high the price might be to make the move, but my assumption is it won't be cheap - the top tier in this draft class seems to be clearly demarcated in most scouting circles, so it's going to take an extraordinary package or sacrifice to make the move from 6 to 4 or higher.

I agree with the general sentiment that it probably won't be worth the move, with the caveat that it will also depend on how the draft goes - If MacKinnon, Jones, Barkov, Drouin and Lindholm all go in the top-5, the only apparently remarkable talent who will be left on the board is Valery Nichushkin, who is a gamble for several reasons (KHL contract for one).

I doubt the Flames, who haven't picked a Russian since Andrei Taratukhin, will spend their first top-10 pick since Dion Phaneuf on a potential KHL flight risk. Meaning, if the big-5 are gone by 6, the Flames likely drop down to the obvious second tier of talent populated by guys like Sean Monahan, Hunter Shinkaruk, Darnell Nurse, etc.

So if the org brass considers that scenario likely, I'd like to see them seriously investigate moving up. The Monahan's of the world aren't bad consolation prizes, but guys like Barkov and Drouin hold the possibility of being team changing talents.

Other Stuff

- Don't tell Minnesota Wild fans, but their GM thinks that puck possession and shot differential matter:

“Last year in an 82 game season, we outshot our opponent [24] 24 times. This year in a 48-game season, we outshot our opponent 26. Our shot differential last year was minus-4.9. We gave up 34.1 shots per game, 26th in the league. Basically, the games we won was because of our goaltending.
“We gave up a lot of shots, we were in our zone an awful lot. This year cut that down to 27.1, 6th-best in the league. To me that’s huge. This year we had the puck more than our opponent. Our shots on goal went up close to 2, a 6.6-shot swing. That’s the biggest improvement of any team in the league since 07-08.
“This year, while we think we have to shoot better and execute better, we had the puck more, we were in our zone less, we defended better, our structure was better."

For those unaware, a big feud erupted between "stats guys" and a segment of the Minnesota Wild fan base last year when the former predicted the Wild's strong start to the season was mostly an illusion based on their league-worst possession stats and exaggerated percentages. Minny predictably collapsed in the second half of the season, but there's still a large portion of Wild fans who sneer at possession-based analysis.

As such I expect a torch and pitchfork mob to oust Chuck Fletcher this off-season, largely for his heretical reference to shot differential witchcraft.

- How did the Wild improve? Mostly thanks to the pricey acquisitions of Ryan Suter and Zach Parise, although it's hard to overlook Jonas Brodin who should have been a calder finalist this year. The rookie defender jumped right onto Minnesota's top pairing with Suter and more than held his own. He could very well develop into a high impact blueliner.

- No major surprises in the playoffs this year, aside from the San Jose sweep of the Canucks. The Islanders probably deserved a better fate in the Penguins series given how much of the game was played in the Pittsburgh end, but they got the bounces in the last couple of contests which happens sometimes.

New York is poised to become a going concern in the East for the first time in recent memory. If their management doesn't screw it up, of course.

- The Leafs hanging with the Bruins is a bit of a shocker I guess. The Bruins are still mostly controlling play at ES, although not to the degree I expected. In part, I think, because Carlyle has kind of been forced to play a good line-up. Jake Gardiner, Cody Franson and Mikhail Grabovski are playing much more than they did in the regular season and that seems to have firmed up the Leafs possession to a non-trivial degree. Clarke MacArthur not being scratched has helped the last couple of games as well.

They're still the second best team in the series, but the difference between the clubs isn't as stark. Boston is the favorite on home ice tonight, but it's not a slam dunk.

- The GM of the year nominees are Bob Murray (Ducks), Marc Bergevin (Canadiens) and Ray Shero (Penguins). Perhaps this should be re-dubbed the "GM of the team who most overachieved relative to expectations and maybe stole some guys at the trade deadline" because there doesn't seem to be much else behind these nominations.

On my ballot would be the Sharks Doug Wilson. His team began the year with a big gaping hole at the end of the roster - to the degree that the bottom-6 was dragging down his impressive collection of stars elsewhere. By the trade deadline, he had cleared out the dead wood (Handzus, Clowe, Murray), improved the bottom-6 with a few low cost acquisitions (Scott Gomez, Raffi Torres) and converted his trash to a nice collection to future assets to boot.

Around the Nation

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
#1 Parallex
May 13 2013, 09:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"if the big-5 are gone by 6"

I wish there was a cut-off date for declaring "The Big". I mean why is it "The Big 5"? People were commonly refering to "the big 4" just a few minutes/hours/days/weeks ago and to the best of my knowledge no one has put in performances in the meantime to either raise or lower their stock. When, why, and how did 4 become 5?

FWIW: I think there is no "Big 5" I think there is a "Big 3" Jones, Mackinnon and Drouin have shuffled around in mocks, talent evals lists, and hype but it's always been those three in the 1-3 positions. I would suggest that the cutoff point for "The Big" is after Three not Five. Barkov usually clocks in at #4 but he's never been higher then that and (albeit rarely) has been lower.

Avatar
#2 ИАТНАN
May 13 2013, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would love for the Flames to move up and grab Barkov at 4, but I doubt any of the teams in the top 4 picks would budge unless you offered them an unbelievable package (one that probably wouldn't be worth it).

I still think Lindholm falls to the Flames at 6 because I can see Carolina taking a bit more of a gamble on Nichuskin because they underachieved big time this year and they have already convinced one "enigmatic" Russian that Carolina is a good place to be. I can also see Carolina going "off the board" to take a defensemen like Nurse or Pulock because their backend needs some serious upgrades.

Avatar
#3 dotfras
May 13 2013, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The more and more I read, the more I like the sounds of Barkov. Has there been any teams that traded up in recent memory?

What did it take?

Avatar
#5 Bezer
May 13 2013, 10:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Our only shot at top 5 is Barkov at 4 and only because it sounds like Nashville might like Lindholm. The top 3 (Jones, McKinnon, Droiun) are untouchable or it would cost the Flames too much to move up. A 6th+20th + a lil' somethingsomething would get Barkov. Or maybe a 6th and Gio? The real question is, is the talent gap between Barkov and Lindholm/Monohan worth giving up other assets for? Depending on the price I def think it is worth a shot.

I keep telling myself that after this draft we will have a TRUE FIRST LINE CENTER OMG(olly)!!

Avatar
#6 PerpetuallyPineapple
May 13 2013, 10:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This is the first time since Joe Nieuwendyk left that we have a chance at a top tier talent at Centre, I say go for it. These chances dont come often for the Flames and we all know that if Iggy had at top tier guy at Centre things might be a little bit different today.

Avatar
#7 Wizard22
May 13 2013, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I hope we pick the best player of the draft with the 6th pick. It Ia quite possible McKinnon/Drouin/Jones do not become NHL stars. To be successful at a quick rebuild the Flames need good scouting and a little luck. Thia allows the team to build a talent ( asset) pool faster.

I also like the idea of taking on a one yr salary dump. Get a "specialist" even if hr is older. Hr could teach the younger players some tricks (ex: faceoff). Then trade the player at the deadline (if warranted) gaining the franchise one or two more assets.

Avatar
#8 dotfras
May 13 2013, 10:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Bezer

It's not just the talent gap between Barkov and Lindholm if you're giving up a great asset and potential captain in Gio.

It's Barkov :: Lindholm AND Gio........ I don't think he's THAT good.

Avatar
#9 BurningSensation
May 13 2013, 10:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

" I assume he (Nichushkin) won't be on the Flames board though."

You'd have better access to what they think than any of us, but a GM willing to make a move down to draft Jankowski because of his upside, woud also be willing to draft Nichushkin based on his. If anything I would wonder if Feaster and Weisbrod don't have him ranked even higher.

I think too much is being made of the KHL 'risk'. Only Radulov and Kuznetsov have openly preferred to be in Russia vs the NHL, and in Kuznetsov's case he has always indicated he would eventually come over.

The big reason for the pressure to play in the KHL is that the Olympics are being used as a goad by the Russians to keep talent in the KHL. Play in North America and your spot on the team will be a lot harder to land. Play in the KHL and you have a fighting chance.

It would mean you have to let Nichushkin (a name that cries out for a good nickname to replace it), play a couple of years in the K, but so what? Development is a good thing.

Which raises the question that if the KHL isn't a serious reason to downgrade him, what is it that would make Feaster wary of taking him? He checks all the other boxes;

- Position: RW (would love it if it turns out he can win face-offs and also play C), where we have a lack of depth - Size: 6'4", 195 - Skating (Pronman has him among the elite skaters in the draft) - Goal scoring ability (his NHLE was for 20-10-30pts as a 17 year old) - Hockey sense (Pronman has him as 'above average')

I'd say his downside is that of a Slavic Blake Wheeler, with the possible upside of a Marion Hossa/Rick Nash borderline HOF type package.

In contrast, Monahan's ceiling is just much lower. He looks for all the world like he'll fall into that range between Mike Fisher and Mike Richards. A solid two-way pivot who does everything well, but nothing elite, with the upside of being a Selke guy who can play the other teams toughs and run the 2nd unit powerplay cycle from the half-wall. So it is not bad if we end up with Monahan by any stretch, but I'd rather swing for the fences.

Here's a question, which player would Darryl Sutter have selected? Do the opposite.

Avatar
#10 Parallex
May 13 2013, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

If your using NHLE as your primary determiner it would be the Big 6 unless you want to jettison Seth Jones (which would be crazy). Because there are 5 guys + Jones before you get to the drop off (which is 6.5 points... which is a drop but I'm not sure if you could call it steep).

Regardless, even if that's all true I think it would be crazy to part with the packages you prognosticated for such a small difference when all you need is for 1 of the 5 teams drafting in front of us to have Nichushkin on their board or to have a Defenseman not named Jones on their board, or to simply not rate one of the five as highly in order to get them and give up nothing in the process.

Avatar
#11 Kevin R
May 13 2013, 10:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

So lets assume the top 6 are who Kent says & the Russian kid falls to us. Thing is, if we truly don't want Nichuskin, I am sure someone will. Suddenly, maybe we can get that huge overpayment & should we be considering that?

Avatar
#12 Parallex
May 13 2013, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

@Kent Wilson

" I assume he (Nichushkin) won't be on the Flames board though."

You'd have better access to what they think than any of us, but a GM willing to make a move down to draft Jankowski because of his upside, woud also be willing to draft Nichushkin based on his. If anything I would wonder if Feaster and Weisbrod don't have him ranked even higher.

I think too much is being made of the KHL 'risk'. Only Radulov and Kuznetsov have openly preferred to be in Russia vs the NHL, and in Kuznetsov's case he has always indicated he would eventually come over.

The big reason for the pressure to play in the KHL is that the Olympics are being used as a goad by the Russians to keep talent in the KHL. Play in North America and your spot on the team will be a lot harder to land. Play in the KHL and you have a fighting chance.

It would mean you have to let Nichushkin (a name that cries out for a good nickname to replace it), play a couple of years in the K, but so what? Development is a good thing.

Which raises the question that if the KHL isn't a serious reason to downgrade him, what is it that would make Feaster wary of taking him? He checks all the other boxes;

- Position: RW (would love it if it turns out he can win face-offs and also play C), where we have a lack of depth - Size: 6'4", 195 - Skating (Pronman has him among the elite skaters in the draft) - Goal scoring ability (his NHLE was for 20-10-30pts as a 17 year old) - Hockey sense (Pronman has him as 'above average')

I'd say his downside is that of a Slavic Blake Wheeler, with the possible upside of a Marion Hossa/Rick Nash borderline HOF type package.

In contrast, Monahan's ceiling is just much lower. He looks for all the world like he'll fall into that range between Mike Fisher and Mike Richards. A solid two-way pivot who does everything well, but nothing elite, with the upside of being a Selke guy who can play the other teams toughs and run the 2nd unit powerplay cycle from the half-wall. So it is not bad if we end up with Monahan by any stretch, but I'd rather swing for the fences.

Here's a question, which player would Darryl Sutter have selected? Do the opposite.

At the #6 spot or if he had his pick of the litter? I have a funny feeling that if Daz was in charge he'd probably draft Nurse at #6.

Avatar
#13 seve927
May 13 2013, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

As people are saying it's a very big price. Would the price be any bigger after the draft? Why give it up not knowing if you could get your guy anyway. If the price is Monahan + package for Barkov, would it change after the draft?

Avatar
#15 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BurningSensation

"Here's a question, which player would Darryl Sutter have selected? Do the opposite."

Irrelavant. Sutter would have traded down to pick up a 2nd rnd'r and then trade that for a "solid" vet.

Avatar
#16 Jeff Lebowski
May 13 2013, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

With Nishuchkin there is also the risk of future contract negotiations or renegotiations (Yashin). I think the KHL option could be used as leverage. Depends on the character of the player and agent. Maybe not but ...

Some of his comments are a little concerning to me, 'when I go over to NA it will only be for NHL, no minors no junior'. His point may be valid (He can get paid more in KHL) but I don't think you say those things publicly. That's just me.

I think the issues with Monahan (from what I've read) is that he's a more direct player - no flash. However Iggy was a direct player and I'd say Toews is too.

He's almost a year older than the others. Has he kind of peaked? I'm not sure about that issue but I've read it about him.

With him, if you're the best player on a bad team you're gonna draw the most attention. He was and he produced.

I wanted the sexy pick too but now, with more thought, I just want 1st line production.

Avatar
#17 FireOnIce
May 13 2013, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Calgary hasn't taken a Russian under th Feaster regime either. I don't even know if they send scouts over there at this point. Nichushkin is also operating under a KHL contract that runs another few years, which should definitely raise some flags given where the Flames are picking.

If they rate him, then this is all moot I guess, assuming he falls to the Flames.

I agree with Kent on this one. Nichushkin's KHL contract has another 2 years on it (the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 seasons) and with all the animosity between the NHL/KHL, I doubt he comes over early.

Another scary thing is the recent transfer agreement signed between the NHL and IIHF. Russia stayed out of it completely, so there's no deal right now to transfer players.

This is not someone I would draft. Can't play/be developed in NA for 2 years (and it doesn't appear he wants to play in the AHL either), no transfer agreement between the two leagues, and would probably get paid a ton more (tax-free) in the KHL once his contract is up (than in the NHL).

If he came to NA, they'd pay him $975K or whatever, per year, for 3 years. If he's really any good, he'd make in the MILLIONS per year in the KHL at that time.

No, I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.

Avatar
#18 piscera.infada
May 13 2013, 11:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What would you say the chances are that Nashville and Carolina take Barkov/Lindholm?

I think either are the kind of players we need moving forward. I'm not entirely sold on Monahan - not to say I'd be running through the streets naked, burning cars if we picked him.

Perhaps if those two players are gone (in addition to the "top 3") you can trade #6 to Buffalo for #8 and #16 if you don't want to trade up. If this isn't palatable, then you try like the dickens to trade up and get one of those two.

Avatar
#19 piscera.infada
May 13 2013, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@piscera.infada

To qualify this, Buffalo seems like the kind of team that could use Monahan, and I have heard (from no one official) that Edmonton really likes him.

Avatar
#20 BurningSensation
May 13 2013, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
dotfras wrote:

It's not just the talent gap between Barkov and Lindholm if you're giving up a great asset and potential captain in Gio.

It's Barkov :: Lindholm AND Gio........ I don't think he's THAT good.

Go to YouTube and find Barkov's reverse Pavel Datsyuk shootout move.

It's the Black Plague of sick.

If the Flames can move #6 and Gio to get #4, they should do it.

Gio is a nice top 4 defenseman, and Lindholm has his own share of jaw dropping abilities (and once Barkov is gone I am hoping like hell we get Lindholm), but Barkov outranks everyone in this draft in pure hockey sense, and could easily be the must productive player chosen.

The big knock on him is below average NHL caliber skating. Fixable (the same was said about Tavares), but a concern.

We can always sign another GIo in free agency. Guys like Barkov are as rare as unobtanium.

Avatar
#21 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 11:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Here's a suggestion. I to am not big on picking Nichushkin. So, assuming Jones, Drouin and MacKinnon go 1,2,3 and Barkov, Lindholm next, leaving us a choice of Monahan or Nichushkin, that many seem not to like, would we trade down?

What if we could trade #6 to BUF for #8 and #16. Then we consider trading #8 to CLB for #14 & #19. We may have to add to get all that done but we end up with 5 1st rnd's in a deep draft. Sure the high end guys are gone before we get them but we would have a shot at good C options and very good D options- Morrisey, Risto, Pulock etc. Our depth at the prospect level would be unprecedented for this organization. Consider the option to take Risto or Pulock at 14. Gauthier at 19, Zykov, Bowie, etc etc.

I'm not saying this is what I would like, I want us to take the pick at #6 (or better if we trade up at a reasonable cost). However, for arguement sake.... Now, looking forward, with all this depth in our system we could look at trading 2 or 3 very good prospects for future 1sts. Maybe we get lucky with a trade and end up with a lottery pick that gets us McDavid in 2015.

Thoughts?

*Edit* piscera.infada we think alike......

Avatar
#22 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 12:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would look at trying to trade Cammi to DAL as well for the #10 pick. Then look at moving down for extra 1sts, 2nds.

I'm still of the thinking that we should grab bad, 1yr contracts to acquire 2nd rnd's in the #31- #45 range. Lot's of talent there.

Avatar
#23 Bean-counting cowboy
May 13 2013, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wonder how many others see Nichushkin as a risk (ie, Carolina, Nashville). Worse case scenario: he falls to 7 because Calgary's scared, Edmonton takes him and he becomes the next Ilya Kovalchuk playing on a line with Yakupov, we end up with Monahan who becomes an NHL'er but with limited offense :(

I can see Edmonton willing to take the risk given their depth of high end guys already. The more I think about it, trading up sounds better and better all the time.

Avatar
#24 McRib
May 13 2013, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Gotta love the hockey world everyone jumps on the "Big 5" bandwagon after one individual comes up with the novel concept, such an original community the Hockey World is.... Haha. Honestly I don't see as much defination between picks 2-7 as most, for me both Monahan & Lindholm could end up being as good or better than Barkov & Mackinnon. Lets not forget none of these players are going to be a Connor McDavid i.e. Sidney Crosby once in a decade prospect, outside of maybe Seth Jones. Lets compare them Nathan Mackinnon had 1.70 PPG & Sean Monahan had 1.44 PPG, Monahan also has better size, a better Hockey IQ and played on one of the worst CHL teams where as Mackinnon played on the deepest CHL team. Elias Lindholm had 0.625 PPG, Barkov had 0.90 PPG, Lindholm was better down the stretch playing in a much deeper league and Barkov now has injury concerns.

Having seen all of these players multiple times, honestly the only guarantee for me is Seth Jones at No. 1, all the rest are basically on par except some had slightly stronger seasons than others this year, possibly because they played in better situations? What would Monahan have done if he got to play on Halifax a team that had EIGHT 50+ point guys, instead of being the only person on his team to break 50 points? He finish 38 points ahead of his next teammate in scoring, don't know about you but that tells me something!!! I just think Monahan/Lindholm are a lot closer than a Macknnion than most think... But because Bob Mackenzie or Darren Dregier said the top five are on another level lets all just drink the KoolAid.

Anyway considering the NYI attempted to trade all of their picks last season to Columbus to move from 4th to 2nd to get Ryan Murray, good luck moving from 6th to 3/4th. Its not worth the cost to likely get a player of similar caliber. Lets roll with Sean Monahan, who to start the season was a surefire Top. 3 anyway and would be any other year as well.

Avatar
#25 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 12:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I still think Barkov could slip to us. I will put it out there right now that, barring any teams behind us trading up to #5 or higher, I could see at least 1 other D man going top 5. I just have this feeing that someone really values Nurse. I think CAR would rather have a D man than Lindholm, Monahan or possibly even Barkov given their current centers. The Staals are still pretty young.

Avatar
#26 danglesnipecelly
May 13 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Can I change my "GOAT" vote to Steve Begin? If he doesn't score those two ridiculous goals against Detroit, we're probably not having this conversation.

Avatar
#27 McRib
May 13 2013, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

I agree that things are not as definitive as TSN, The Hockey News seem to think for the NHL teams. Also the fact that some Mock Drafts have Lindholm going as high as fourth tells you the Top. 5 is closer and who knows once teams start interviewing all of the players, they might fall in love with someone. Both Carolina and Tampa Bay need defenders, I think its very likely one of them reaches for a Darnell Nurse or Rasmus Ristolainen. But I am also prefectly fine with Monahan or Lindholm worst case.

Avatar
#28 Glenn
May 13 2013, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I also believe the cost of moving up even 2 spots isn't going to worth it. There will be an excellent prospect available at #6. My fear is how Feaster and Co will SCREW it up. Some things you can count on!

Avatar
#29 McRib
May 13 2013, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Has anyone else notice that the St. Louis first rounder of ours is climbing nicely because of them being knocked out of the first round?? It looks to have moved from the 25 range to the 19-20 range. Thats a Bo Horvat, Josh Morrissey, Curtis Lazar or a falling Adam Erne/Alexander Wennberg.

Avatar
#30 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Glenn wrote:

I also believe the cost of moving up even 2 spots isn't going to worth it. There will be an excellent prospect available at #6. My fear is how Feaster and Co will SCREW it up. Some things you can count on!

C'mon, dude, a little positivity.

Avatar
#31 McRib
May 13 2013, 12:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

Considering the NYI offered Columbus ALL OF THEIR DRAFT PICKS last year to move up from 4th to 2nd for Ryan Murray and Columbus turned it down!!!! I just don't think most people realize how much teams value Top. 4 draft picks. The Sedins happened because it was one of the weakest drafts in history, which is the complete opposite as this year.

Avatar
#32 Glenn
May 13 2013, 12:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

Just being realistic my friend. If we come away with Lindholm or Monahan at #6, I think we could all live with that. I have a bad feeling that if we don't get into Feaster's Top 4, the boys are going to take another flyer.

Avatar
#33 Glenn
May 13 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@McRib

Sorry, I don't get the relevance this has to my comment, other than we won't be moving up.

Avatar
#34 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Glenn wrote:

Just being realistic my friend. If we come away with Lindholm or Monahan at #6, I think we could all live with that. I have a bad feeling that if we don't get into Feaster's Top 4, the boys are going to take another flyer.

Seems pessimistic to me. What are you basing your "realistic" thoughts on, out of curiousity?

Feaster has stated plenty of times that he wants skill. The Janko pick, I think, proves that. He wasn't satisfied with what he likely considered mediocre and reached for a kid that has high skills but played in a very low tier league and therefor the application of those skills were in question.

I'm confident that we will find a very good player at #6. My anticipation is for Feaster to acquire more picks in the top 45, as well as what he takes/does with the 2 other 1st rounders.

If we could add another top 12 pick, I'm looking for Feaster to trade down the next pick.

Avatar
#35 Glenn
May 13 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@T&A4Flames

Unlike you, I hate the Jankowski pick. Only time will tell.

Avatar
#36 McRib
May 13 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

Huh.... You stated "I also believe the cost of moving up even 2 spots isn't going to be worth it".

So I gave you a direct example of an identical situation.... Last season where the Islanders tried to move up two spots packaging all seven draft picks into a ludicrous offer for the second overall pick and it still wasn't enough... Thus confirming you statement "that the cost of moving up two spots isn't going to be worth it".

If that is not relevant than I think you need to look up the term relevant in a dictionary, LOLOLOLOL.

Avatar
#37 T&A4Flames
May 13 2013, 01:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Glenn wrote:

Unlike you, I hate the Jankowski pick. Only time will tell.

I didn't say I loved the pick, but I don't hate it either. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just curious as to your reasoning. Is it strictly the Janko pick?

Avatar
#38 Parallex
May 13 2013, 01:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

That's one of the reasons I don't put much value in NHLE... the number completely lacks any accounting for context. Monahan played for the worst team in the OHL, Gotta believe that if you were to swap him onto a powerhouse team like the Mooseheads or the Winterhawks his counting stats (and therefor NHLE) would be higher. That's not to say that I think he's better then MacKinnon (I don't) but the raw stats from which it's (NHLE) determined don't take QualTeam (or numerous other things) into account. I'd prefer Lindholm to Monahan personally but not so much that I'd burn valuable assets of that nature to move up 1 slot to ensure that I'd get him and certainly not based primarily on as crude a tool as NHLE. To be blunt I question the accuracy of NHLE as a prediction tool.

As for Pronman... I respect his opinion but he's just one voice amoungst many and he's not infallable.

Avatar
#39 the-wolf
May 13 2013, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

That's one of the reasons I don't put much value in NHLE... the number completely lacks any accounting for context. Monahan played for the worst team in the OHL, Gotta believe that if you were to swap him onto a powerhouse team like the Mooseheads or the Winterhawks his counting stats (and therefor NHLE) would be higher. That's not to say that I think he's better then MacKinnon (I don't) but the raw stats from which it's (NHLE) determined don't take QualTeam (or numerous other things) into account. I'd prefer Lindholm to Monahan personally but not so much that I'd burn valuable assets of that nature to move up 1 slot to ensure that I'd get him and certainly not based primarily on as crude a tool as NHLE. To be blunt I question the accuracy of NHLE as a prediction tool.

As for Pronman... I respect his opinion but he's just one voice amoungst many and he's not infallable.

Speaking of NHLE, here's an article on Monhan from J. Willis:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04/29/how-much-offensive-potential-does-2013-nhl-draft-prospect-sean-monahan-have/

Adding in context, as you suggest, sure makes him attractive prospect.

I'm still really divided between him and Lindholm.

Avatar
#40 McRib
May 13 2013, 01:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

How does everyone “not like a pick” of a kid that they have never seen and who still has 40-50 pounds to gain?? If they are basing it on the fact that NHL Central Scouting had him ranked in the second round, they should know most NHL scouts laugh at those rankings all season. Hence Josh Morrissey situation on that list this year. Good luck getting him outside of 15-20, even though they have him middle second, Haha. Most NHL teams had him 20-30th because of upside and that where he went. He was the youngest player in all of the NCAA this season and surpised many out east that he comfortably made the jump straight to College. Multiple friends and former teammates play in the Hockey East and they all tell me he is going to be an absolute beast once he fills out, so I am going to side with them… Sorry. I unfortunately think he is going to make a lot of Flames Fans look foolish for years to come.

Also who in the world did you want the Flames to draft because anyone else in that range (Faksa, Girgensons, Maatta and Ceci) all had major Plataea seasons not a good sign for a prospect ever!!! Give me a late bloomer over some fully developed average 18 year-olds anyday!!

Avatar
#41 the-wolf
May 13 2013, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

THN is funny that way. Lindholm is pegged as a 2nd liner and Monahan is said to be 1st line capable when you read the actual scouting reports. Yet Lindholm is ranked higer. I honestly don't understand it.

Avatar
#42 Glenn
May 13 2013, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
McRib wrote:

Huh.... You stated "I also believe the cost of moving up even 2 spots isn't going to be worth it".

So I gave you a direct example of an identical situation.... Last season where the Islanders tried to move up two spots packaging all seven draft picks into a ludicrous offer for the second overall pick and it still wasn't enough... Thus confirming you statement "that the cost of moving up two spots isn't going to be worth it".

If that is not relevant than I think you need to look up the term relevant in a dictionary, LOLOLOLOL.

Isn't that what i said? The only relevance is, they won't be moving up. The Isles and Jackets are not in this picture. You really are quite full of yourself with the dictionary comment aren't you?

Avatar
#43 the-wolf
May 13 2013, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
McRib wrote:

How does everyone “not like a pick” of a kid that they have never seen and who still has 40-50 pounds to gain?? If they are basing it on the fact that NHL Central Scouting had him ranked in the second round, they should know most NHL scouts laugh at those rankings all season. Hence Josh Morrissey situation on that list this year. Good luck getting him outside of 15-20, even though they have him middle second, Haha. Most NHL teams had him 20-30th because of upside and that where he went. He was the youngest player in all of the NCAA this season and surpised many out east that he comfortably made the jump straight to College. Multiple friends and former teammates play in the Hockey East and they all tell me he is going to be an absolute beast once he fills out, so I am going to side with them… Sorry. I unfortunately think he is going to make a lot of Flames Fans look foolish for years to come.

Also who in the world did you want the Flames to draft because anyone else in that range (Faksa, Girgensons, Maatta and Ceci) all had major Plataea seasons not a good sign for a prospect ever!!! Give me a late bloomer over some fully developed average 18 year-olds anyday!!

I've never knocked Janko, and hope he works out for obvious reasons, but I think it's just as premature to call him a win. He hasn't done anything yet. Note even close.

And yet you bash all of these other prospects? I don't get it. Nor do I think all of those guys "plateaued." Why does only Calgary's pick get a call for patience? Just because Calgary picked him?

Also, even if Janko was ranked by every team in the league between 20th and 30th, that's not where the Flames were picking so the his selection is still off the board.

After all, if Janko's ceiling is really so high, and he's better than all these guys you list plus Teravainen, plus whoever else.....than why wouldn't he be ranked higher?

Sorry, but the argument that Janko was the BPA at that spot just doesn't add up. Not at thi spoint in time.

Avatar
#44 McRib
May 13 2013, 01:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Parallex

Lets put it this way if the NHLE was completely accurate then Daniel Tkaczuk would not have been one of the biggest busts of all time, lol.

Avatar
#45 Glenn
May 13 2013, 01:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

Maybe we should have traded that pick for a first rounder in 2013. I'm jus sayin.

Avatar
#46 the-wolf
May 13 2013, 01:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/04/15/sean-monahan-2013-nhl-draft-player-profile-6/

Bad skater?

"Monahan’s skating is good for a guy his size. His stride is fluid and Monahan is able to generate good top end speed as a result. His acceleration, agility and edgework are good, allowing Monahan to get by defenders and take advantage of his good stickhandling in making moves past defenders."

Starting to wonder if 'not elite skater' has been turned into 'average or poor skater.'

Avatar
#47 the-wolf
May 13 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

11 point in his first 19 games isn't a bad start.

The concussion was though.

Avatar
#48 SmellOfVictory
May 13 2013, 02:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Parallex wrote:

If your using NHLE as your primary determiner it would be the Big 6 unless you want to jettison Seth Jones (which would be crazy). Because there are 5 guys + Jones before you get to the drop off (which is 6.5 points... which is a drop but I'm not sure if you could call it steep).

Regardless, even if that's all true I think it would be crazy to part with the packages you prognosticated for such a small difference when all you need is for 1 of the 5 teams drafting in front of us to have Nichushkin on their board or to have a Defenseman not named Jones on their board, or to simply not rate one of the five as highly in order to get them and give up nothing in the process.

I don't think he's using strictly NHLE. Petan isn't counted, as he's not ranked in the top half of the draft by anyone (hell, he's not even in the first round on some scouting lists).

Avatar
#50 Purple Hazze
May 13 2013, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
McRib wrote:

Gotta love the hockey world everyone jumps on the "Big 5" bandwagon after one individual comes up with the novel concept, such an original community the Hockey World is.... Haha. Honestly I don't see as much defination between picks 2-7 as most, for me both Monahan & Lindholm could end up being as good or better than Barkov & Mackinnon. Lets not forget none of these players are going to be a Connor McDavid i.e. Sidney Crosby once in a decade prospect, outside of maybe Seth Jones. Lets compare them Nathan Mackinnon had 1.70 PPG & Sean Monahan had 1.44 PPG, Monahan also has better size, a better Hockey IQ and played on one of the worst CHL teams where as Mackinnon played on the deepest CHL team. Elias Lindholm had 0.625 PPG, Barkov had 0.90 PPG, Lindholm was better down the stretch playing in a much deeper league and Barkov now has injury concerns.

Having seen all of these players multiple times, honestly the only guarantee for me is Seth Jones at No. 1, all the rest are basically on par except some had slightly stronger seasons than others this year, possibly because they played in better situations? What would Monahan have done if he got to play on Halifax a team that had EIGHT 50+ point guys, instead of being the only person on his team to break 50 points? He finish 38 points ahead of his next teammate in scoring, don't know about you but that tells me something!!! I just think Monahan/Lindholm are a lot closer than a Macknnion than most think... But because Bob Mackenzie or Darren Dregier said the top five are on another level lets all just drink the KoolAid.

Anyway considering the NYI attempted to trade all of their picks last season to Columbus to move from 4th to 2nd to get Ryan Murray, good luck moving from 6th to 3/4th. Its not worth the cost to likely get a player of similar caliber. Lets roll with Sean Monahan, who to start the season was a surefire Top. 3 anyway and would be any other year as well.

This exactly! Jones is the only guaranteed all-star I see out of the group. Out the four centers available, I see them as all pretty comparable each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Name a draft year where all five of the first players taken turned out to be legit all-stars?

Comments are closed for this article.