Random Thoughts - May 20 2013

Ryan Pike
May 20 2013 10:42AM

 

 

A few random thoughts on the world championships, memorial cup and how the Flames draft picks are settling out.

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND-UP

Five Flames-related players headed over to Scandinavia for the World Hockey Championships this month. Two of them are coming home with hardware.

Jiri Hudler's Czech Republic team finished in seventh place. Hudler had five points in eight games. T.J. Brodie donned the maple leaf for the first time as part of Canada's World Championship entry, but he had just a single point in the seven games he played. Canada finished fifth.

The Finns made the medal round but bowed out in the bronze medal game, finishing fourth. Finnish back-up Joni Ortio had a good tournament, going undefeated in three starts with a 1.98 goals against average and a .897 save percentage.

Chris Butler put a slight silver lining on his so-so season with a bronze medal. Wait, shouldn't that have been a bronze lining? Anyhow, Butler had two points in 10 games for Team USA.

Finally, prospective Flames back-up Reto “Yogi” Berra showed that he has the chops to be a world-class back-up goaltender with the Swiss. He won a silver medal, going 4-0 in his four starts with a 1.00 goals against and an amazing .967 save percentage. Granted, it's “just” the Worlds, but it was pretty great for him.

MEMORIAL CUP-DATE

Meanwhile, in Saskatoon, the last meaningful hockey of the junior season is taking place in the form of the Memorial Cup tournament. Two Flames prospects are vying for the CHL's top prize. Saskatoon has split a pair of games, with Michael Ferland posting two assists thus far. He's been physical, too. The Blades finish their round robin play on Wednesday night against Portland.

Speaking of Portland, they've played once and Flames prospect Tyler Wotherspoon has zero points in a single game – which the Hawks dropped to the Halifax Mooseheads by a 7-4 score. They play tonight against the London Knights and then again Wednesday against the Blades.

If Portland wins tonight, all four teams are 1-1 after two games and things will get interesting. If Portland loses, they drop to 0-2 and basically disappear from contention already. High stakes.

FLAMES DRAFT PICKS

Well, the Blues are out. And the Penguins have a lead. What does this mean? Presuming, as I will do here, that the Kings, Blackhawks, Bruins and Penguins will be in the conference finals, here's what will happen.

- Calgary's own pick remains at 6th overall.

-St. Louis' first rounder would be 22nd overall.

- Pittsburgh's first rounder would be one of the last four picks, between 27th and 30th overall.

If the Penguins lose, though, because Chicago is the only remaining division winning team that finished ahead of them, the best that Flames fans can hope to draft with their pick is 25th or 26th. Best case is probably Chicago and Pittsburgh losing, in terms of draft picks. If that happened, the Flames would pick 6th, 20th and 25th.

Govern your cheering accordingly.

FGD WRITER RECORDS!

And on a lighter note, I (finally) tabulated the season's FGD records sorted by writer. Based on who wrote the game preview, here's how the Flames did.

I went 9-8-1, boasting a .500 winning percentage. BookofLoob was tied in winning percentage, at 1-1-0. Justin Azevedo went 3-4-1 (for a .375 winning percentage), while Nations overlord Kent Wilson went 4-8-2 for a woeful .285 winning percentage. Only Vintage Flame (0-3-0) was worse.

Collectively, the FN writing crew went 17-24-4. The OilerNation guest writers produced two Flames wins in the three games they previewed for us.

IF I WERE DRAFTING

Finally, if I were drafting as Flames GM, with the 6th, 22nd and 30th picks, here's who I would grab.

At 6th overall: Sean Monahan, from the Ottawa 67s. He's big, a center and has experience being a good player on a bad team. Much like how I enjoyed Brett Kulak carrying the mail in Vancouver (as I think it helps his development), the same can be said for Monahan in Ottawa.

At 22nd overall: Morgan Klimchuk, from the Regina Pats. For one, he's a Calgary kid, but much like Monahan, he's experienced at being a prime guy on his team. He's also a very strong three-zone player and a guy who seems will translate to the professional ranks without much hassle due to his playing style.

At 30th overall: Ryan Hartman, from the Plymouth Whalers. I've been a fan of his since I saw him make life miserable for the opposition at the World Juniors. While boasting good offensive instincts and some strong skill, I mostly like Hartman because of his insane competitiveness and how he's just a huge pain in the backside for the other team.

51a8cdc527ce12d222fdc583f3cf4368
Ryan Pike is a Calgary native and FlamesNation's managing editor. He's covered the Flames and the NHL since 2010. His work can also be found at The Hockey Writers and The Wrestling Observer.
Avatar
#1 BurningSensation
May 20 2013, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Scootermario wrote:

Lets just pray the Flames overthinkers can finally make some good decisions and not try to be smarter than everyone by trying to make the rest of the teams look silly by passing on the no brainers and picking nobodys.

Yeah, that Baertschi pick was a real reach. Same for Gaudreau. I mean, really, who do these guys think they are, acting all smart and such?

Avatar
#2 Austin
May 20 2013, 11:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Why take Monahan when one of Nichuskin or Lindholm will be available? I think you go with the pick that has the higher potential upside. Nichuskin can get out of his KHL deal after this year. And he is much better than Monahan. If we want Monahan let's just trade down to 7 and pick up a 2nd or something.

Avatar
#3 Kevin R
May 20 2013, 11:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

We need to strike while the Butler Bronze iron is hot & try to extract a mid teen pick with him & that Pitt pick. If we can accrue 3 early enough picks to score Monohan, Domi & Ristoulanian(sp?) I would giggle like the pilsbury doe boy being tickled.

Avatar
#4 clYDE
May 20 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Very good article. I agree with Monohan if Lindholme is gone. Lindholme's compete level, tremendous skills and vision as well as superior skating make him too hard to pass up. Will he be there at 6 though? Not a big believer in the long term potential of Klimchuk and feel there will be much better options. I don't know much about Hartman but if he is like you described him, I am all for that selection.

Avatar
#5 Austin
May 20 2013, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Problem is I see Nashville taking Barkov, Carolina grabbing Lindholm, then we need to take Nichuskin. Most people won't think that's a good idea, but this guy is basically the next Malkin, or so I hope. Monahan will need a year in the AHL before he plays with the big squad. Nichuskin will play in the KHL for one more year, then come over after one. He'll be able to prove he belongs in the NHL and then we'll be good to go.

Avatar
#6 Danglesnipecelly
May 20 2013, 12:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yes to Hartman for sure! Love that guy for all the reasons you state... I think I read one scouting report that described him as a "real prick to play against." He's like a slightly bigger Brad Marchand who fights. Hartman has fan favourite written all over him!

Avatar
#7 Scootermario
May 20 2013, 12:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Lets just pray the Flames overthinkers can finally make some good decisions and not try to be smarter than everyone by trying to make the rest of the teams look silly by passing on the no brainers and picking nobodys.

Avatar
#8 bill
May 20 2013, 01:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Whoever Calgary takes I am sure Harvard and Feaster will brag about how they are the best player in the draft. Yikes. I still can't believe somebody actually said Janko will be the best player of last year's draft.

Here's hoping we take Monahan, Hagg, and Hartman.

Why do I get a feeling we are going to trade down?

Why do I get a feeling J.T. Compher is going to be taken higher than he should?

Avatar
#9 If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin
May 20 2013, 02:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

As an armchair gm and pseudo-scout, i would like to see Monahan, Gauthier, and one of Bowey, Morin, or Hartman. Redline has a feature on Gauthier and there is no question he is one of the elite two-way centers in the draft. Button thinks he and Barkov are tied in that regard, with the big question being what Gathier's offensive ceiling is. It is a good gamble to take with the St. louis pick, as the guy is already 6"5 and at the worst becomes a third-line shutdown center.

Avatar
#10 Austin
May 20 2013, 03:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't see why everyone is so big on Hartman. I'm sure his style of play would be enjoyable to watch but that isn't worth a first round pick.

At #6: Plan A: Lindholm. Plan B : Nichuskin. Plan C: Trade #6 and our third to Buffalo for #8 and #16. Take Ristolainen at 8, Burakowsky at 16.

At #22: Plan A: Burakowsky. Unfortunately he'll likely be gone by then but if he is there we take him without a doubt. And it rhymes with Jankowski. Plan B: Buchnevich. Plan C: Mantha.

At #30: Plan A: Lazar. Plan B: De La Rose. Plan C: Santini. I wouldn't even mind taking Hartman here since I think this should be used as a flyer pick here. If Weisbrod wants his college player, or USHL player he can take him here. Not with one of the first two picks.

Avatar
#11 BurningSensation
May 20 2013, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

#6 - Lindholm / Nichushkin / Monahan (I've thought about this so much I'm actually numb - I almost don't care anymore, but this is the order I rank them).

#22 - Domi / Horvat/ / Wennberg / Mantha

#30 - Petan / Klimchuk / Lazar

Give me a few hours I'm sure that my thinking (like the weather) will change again...

Avatar
#12 DoninatorV39
May 20 2013, 07:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

#6 - Lindholm / Nichushkin / Monahan (I've thought about this so much I'm actually numb - I almost don't care anymore, but this is the order I rank them).

#22 - Domi / Horvat/ / Wennberg / Mantha

#30 - Petan / Klimchuk / Lazar

Give me a few hours I'm sure that my thinking (like the weather) will change again...

Watching the Knights-Winterhawks game.

Domi and Horvat look pretty good!

Just sayin'

Avatar
#13 Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea
May 20 2013, 08:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

#6 - Lindholm / Nichushkin / Monahan (I've thought about this so much I'm actually numb - I almost don't care anymore, but this is the order I rank them).

#22 - Domi / Horvat/ / Wennberg / Mantha

#30 - Petan / Klimchuk / Lazar

Give me a few hours I'm sure that my thinking (like the weather) will change again...

I don't see Domi or Horvat dropping that far down after the attention they are getting this spring. If either does, I agree we should grab one of them.

Avatar
#14 44stampede
May 20 2013, 08:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good article. I really don't know much of any of the prospects except from what I read here. I really do not want them to trade down that number 6 unless there is a HUGE overpay including young prospects (read: NO RETREAD VETS!!!).

We have to hit a home run with this.

Avatar
#15 Austin
May 20 2013, 08:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@44stampede

If we give our #6 to Buffalo for their #8 and #16 there's a good chance we could get Domi AND Horvat. Yes please.

Avatar
#16 clYDE
May 20 2013, 09:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wotherspoon is going to be a very good def. Great pick.

Avatar
#17 44stampede
May 20 2013, 09:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Austin wrote:

If we give our #6 to Buffalo for their #8 and #16 there's a good chance we could get Domi AND Horvat. Yes please.

Like I said, I don't know really any of the picks further up just the first 5-7 consensus top picks from the site and commenters. I don't see the 2 you mentioned as picked by anyone as home runs. They may turn out to be decent NHLers but we need a game changer. We HAVE to take a shot at it. We won't get many opportunities like this.

Avatar
#18 Henry
May 20 2013, 09:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Colorado- Jones/MacKinnon

Florida - Drouin/ MacKinnon

TB- Drouin/ MacKinnon

Nash- Barkov/ Lindholm - most likely Barkov

Car - Nichushkin, Monahan Lindholm Nurse, Zadorov

Cal- Nichushkin, Monahan Lindholm

EDM- Monahan, Zadorov, Lindholm Nichushkin

Avatar
#19 Austin
May 20 2013, 10:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
44stampede wrote:

Like I said, I don't know really any of the picks further up just the first 5-7 consensus top picks from the site and commenters. I don't see the 2 you mentioned as picked by anyone as home runs. They may turn out to be decent NHLers but we need a game changer. We HAVE to take a shot at it. We won't get many opportunities like this.

Domi is a top 10 talent and Horvat is a top 15 talent. They already have chemistry too. The only reason I would trade down is if we are going to choose Monahan. I don't really want him. He isn't a game changer either. Problem is if it comes down to Nichuskin and Monahan at #6, which it most likely will. I'm afraid that the Flames will ignore Nichuskin due to the Russian factor. I'm hoping Nichuskin goes in the top five, that way we have the easy choice of picking Lindholm at 6. I just think if we had to choose between Monahan, or Horvat AND Domi, I would take the latter if buffalo likes Monahan or Nichuskin enough. Then we'd have four first rounders.

Avatar
#20 drdoogie16
May 20 2013, 11:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think as hard as it would be to pass on a talent like Nichuskin, the Flames do not have the depth to take a chance on a guy that may not come over or stay via Taratukin. Monahan to me looks like the next Logan Couture. Yeh, was on a crap team this year and won't be a superstar at the NHL but a very good player. With the 2nd pick, there are many good options, but if Horvat was there he would be a good one, if not, Morin or a big physical defenseman would be touch to pass on. I think you can get Klimchuk or Rychel or another good forward with the last pick of the 1st round.

Avatar
#21 44stampede
May 21 2013, 01:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Couture is awesome. I would be very happy with a player like that. He is going to be the best Shark soon (if not already).

Avatar
#22 Sincity1976
May 21 2013, 02:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Their is no question the Flames need to find a franchise C. Those players are rarely available outside the draft. So this is the season to draft one. Whether that is Barkov, Monahan, or Lindholm I don't know.

Hartman to me is the obvious second pick for the Flames. We NEED RWers. We have exactly zero A or B RW prospects in our system. Hanowski is the closest we have and I don't think he has the feet to be an NHL player.

Avatar
#23 the-wolf
May 21 2013, 07:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What baout Zykov? This guy doesn't get nearly enough play IMO. RW, great size, leading rook goal scorer, skates well and has solid hockey IQ. He'd be my 2nd pick in the first - players I like better, but trying to be realistic as I think Domi, for example, will be long gone by 22.

Avatar
#24 BJ
May 21 2013, 07:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ most of the comments

I disagree with most of you on the 6th. I think we really need to take Monahan. He may not have the most offensive potential, but who do we want; the next Backstrom or the next Bergeron? I'd take a Bergeron over a Stamkos any day. Might not have the same offensive potential but plays a two way game and is a major factor in winning. We want to win right? The team proved this year they can score without Iggy. Hell, our AHL team won games down the stretch. I see Monahan as a piece that can be built around more so than a Linholm or a Nicushkin. If Nicushkin drops then maybe try to move up.

On the other two picks: Nothing wrong with grabbing another center (Horvat, Gauthier) but one of Morin, Zadorov, Risto should be a priority - need to move up if we can.

Avatar
#25 Jeff In Lethbridge
May 21 2013, 08:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@the-wolf

he looks pretty good for sure... think he will last that long? what's he ranked? I especially like the PIMs and the +/- that came along with his high points in his first year in the Q, plus gotta like the rookie of the year

Avatar
#26 Baalzamon
May 21 2013, 08:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BJ

I don't know that Monahan skates well enough to be "the next Bergeron". It's funny, but most of the comparisons people come up with for Monahan are players who are actually more like Lindholm.

I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but Monahan might be closer to the next Martin Hanzal than the next Bergeron or Toews. Nothing wrong with Hanzal, but is that really what the Flames should be going for at 6th if there might be a better option?

FWY, I fully expect Monahan to make more of an offensive impact in the NHL than Hanzal has (or, at least, to show up on the scoresheet more frequently and earlier).

Avatar
#27 the-wolf
May 21 2013, 08:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff In Lethbridge wrote:

he looks pretty good for sure... think he will last that long? what's he ranked? I especially like the PIMs and the +/- that came along with his high points in his first year in the Q, plus gotta like the rookie of the year

LAte 1st, early 2nd from a few of the lists I've seen.

Avatar
#28 Scary Gary
May 21 2013, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Austin wrote:

If we give our #6 to Buffalo for their #8 and #16 there's a good chance we could get Domi AND Horvat. Yes please.

I was wondering if someone was going to suggest this. Four first rounders would be interesting.

We'd definitely have to negotiate it in principal and wait until Carolina picked to ensure Barkov didn't somehow slip to sixth.

Avatar
#29 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 09:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I really think Barkov will slip to us. Jones, Drouin and MacKinnon will be gone with the 1st 3 picks. I think NSH will take Monahan, a NA center as opposed to a european. I doubt NSH has a strong scouting presense in europe and with Barkov injured they may pass. I also think CAR will take a D, likely Nurse, thus dropping Barkov to 6. Players always drop and I think Barkov will be that guy this year.

As for Nichushkin, if he shows for the combine I would feel more comfortable about the Flames taking him at 6. However, I doubt he shows and he will drop to #10 or lower.

As for the later picks, I'm really hoping that CGY can make something work with a team like PHI and get a 2nd top 10. If they can, and we get Barkov, I would consider trying to trade down with a team like CLB and perhaps picking up their later 1st round pick (likely LA's pick).

In order:

1st (CGY)- Barkov, Lindholm, Monahan (in that order)

2nd (CLB)- Ristolainen, Gauthier, Horvat, Zykov (Risto 1st or a 2nd centermen or RW is my thinking, here)

3rd (LAK)- Any of the remaining from #2; Bowey, Bailey, Santini

4th (PIT)- Any remaining from above; Compher

Basically, if we get our #1 future centerman, we can make moves to add depth to the prospect cupboards and more chances at future NHL's.

*Edit- I left out STL pick because I would think a deal with PHI like I suggested, would include that pick.

Avatar
#30 Derzie
May 21 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The risk of problems for KHL, High School, low NHLE league, or Russian related picks is not worth it in this first round, in my opinion. We are not in a position to waste picks on Boom/Bust propositions (cough Janko). We need Solid/Very Good picks. That means no Nickushin et al flyers. The gamblers in the crowd will yell foul but at least we will have something in the system come fall.

Avatar
#31 PerpetuallyPineapple
May 21 2013, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

People need to get off Janko's back, as a fan it disappoints me that the fan base is writing him off before he even gets a chance. He has the tool set and the size to be successful in the NHL, how about we give him the chance to prove it before we write him off..ummmkay?

Don't forget we managed to get Patrick Seiloff as a result of that pick, I would much rather have those two picks then the guys they could of picked up, considering they haven't proven anything at the NHL level yet either.

Avatar
#32 Kurt
May 21 2013, 10:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Scary Gary wrote:

I was wondering if someone was going to suggest this. Four first rounders would be interesting.

We'd definitely have to negotiate it in principal and wait until Carolina picked to ensure Barkov didn't somehow slip to sixth.

I feel like we are starting to see the breadth of the Flames problems and are trying to address it with volume instead of time....

It it really better to get 4 first rounders this year OR 2 first rounders this year (trade 1 of our lower picks to move 6 up) AND another top 5 pick next year.

I mean if we sit back and think rationally, we can't restock the cupboards in 1 year. Its unrealistic they all hit. And as the Oilers have shown us, you can't expect 18 year olds to really do much for 3-4 years ESPECIALLY if you have too many at once. And their 18 year olds are the most elite possible, not middling 1st rounders....

My point is I'd much rather see us try to go for quality of quantity. I'd rather see us trade away all 3 1st rounders to get into the top 3 if that was somehow possible, instead of getting 4 middling picks who may pan out someday maybe.

We need to start thinking of the draft as an ongoing process, and think of next year as another opportunity for a top 10 pick to slowly rebuild this mess, instead of trying to make up for 15 years of prospect delinquency in 1 draft.

Just my opinion, I'm sure people disagree and would prefer to rebuild in 1 year with one massive jackpot draft. But I'd rather be realistic (or pessimistic however you look at it)

Avatar
#33 Kevin R
May 21 2013, 11:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

I feel like we are starting to see the breadth of the Flames problems and are trying to address it with volume instead of time....

It it really better to get 4 first rounders this year OR 2 first rounders this year (trade 1 of our lower picks to move 6 up) AND another top 5 pick next year.

I mean if we sit back and think rationally, we can't restock the cupboards in 1 year. Its unrealistic they all hit. And as the Oilers have shown us, you can't expect 18 year olds to really do much for 3-4 years ESPECIALLY if you have too many at once. And their 18 year olds are the most elite possible, not middling 1st rounders....

My point is I'd much rather see us try to go for quality of quantity. I'd rather see us trade away all 3 1st rounders to get into the top 3 if that was somehow possible, instead of getting 4 middling picks who may pan out someday maybe.

We need to start thinking of the draft as an ongoing process, and think of next year as another opportunity for a top 10 pick to slowly rebuild this mess, instead of trying to make up for 15 years of prospect delinquency in 1 draft.

Just my opinion, I'm sure people disagree and would prefer to rebuild in 1 year with one massive jackpot draft. But I'd rather be realistic (or pessimistic however you look at it)

I just cant support this Kurt. Way too many eggs in one player basket. Our cupboard is so skinny & with this particular quality draft, if its anything near 2003, 3 or 4 darts are going to give the Flames a huge boast in their rebuild. & I don't see anyone here posting that because we have 3 or 4 1st that we will be back at the dance next year. No one thinks that & we know this will take time. But we have a chance to put 3 or 4 potentially excellent players into our system that we hope to see play on the Flames in the next 2 years. Add a few that we already have that seem to have a similar timeline & it many of us are looking 2-3 years down the road to be pretty excited about our team. 3 picks for a top 3 overall I would not do.

Avatar
#34 Kurt
May 21 2013, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

I just cant support this Kurt. Way too many eggs in one player basket. Our cupboard is so skinny & with this particular quality draft, if its anything near 2003, 3 or 4 darts are going to give the Flames a huge boast in their rebuild. & I don't see anyone here posting that because we have 3 or 4 1st that we will be back at the dance next year. No one thinks that & we know this will take time. But we have a chance to put 3 or 4 potentially excellent players into our system that we hope to see play on the Flames in the next 2 years. Add a few that we already have that seem to have a similar timeline & it many of us are looking 2-3 years down the road to be pretty excited about our team. 3 picks for a top 3 overall I would not do.

Where does this myth about this being a deep draft come from? Its certainly not 2003... This draft was speculated to be deep 2-3 years ago but its fizzled and I don't think anyone thinks its a banner draft anymore except Flames fans.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49838-2013-NHL-draft-lacks-depth-of-talent.html

Personally I'd rather have 1 top 3 pick instead of 8, 16, 21, 30 like some are suggesting through a trade down.

Laugh all you want at the Oilers (I do) but they have proven that 3 first rounders doesn't mean squat if they don't pan out. They had very similar positions to us in 08 and drafted Sam Gagner at 6 or 7 or whatver they had (who turned into a legit 2nd line depth player, but not a game breaker or team changer). Then they got 2 big busts with the other 1st rounders.

We can agree to disagree I guess. I don't believe volume translates to elite talent. Thats the crux of my arguments on why we need patience and a slow plan for the next 2-3 years that includes at least 1 more top draft finish (hopefully top 5 next year).

Avatar
#35 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

I agree with you Kevin. Kurt says "we can't restock the cupboards in 1 year. Its unrealistic they all hit." That's exactly true. So why continue with saying "you can't expect 18 year olds to really do much for 3-4 years ESPECIALLY if you have too many at once."

You likely won't have too many at once. But quite honestly, if we did have too many, that is a great problem to have!

I am a supporter of adding more darts for the board but not at the cost of trading down from our highest pick (#6). As I said before, if we somehow luck out and Barkov falls to us, he becomes that future hopeful 1st line C that has eluded us for so long. Depending on what is on the board with the other 2 1st rnd's, I would certainly consider trading dowm both. From all the reading I've doen on this draft and it's prospects, there is so much potential in the top 45. Depending on what list you look at, guys like Zykov, Hartman, Bowey, Santini and on and on are 2nd round options. Picking up 1 or 2 of those guys in addition to 2 other 1st rnd's to me is a potential huge kick start to a rebuild.

I'm still hoping for another vet or 2 to be moved to get another 1st or to move up. I also hope for Feaster to pick up expensive but useful contracts with 2nd rnd additions.

Restock those cupboards as quickly as possible and get on with the business of winning NHL games.

Avatar
#36 Kurt
May 21 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

Quote from that article I linked: ***

“The 2013 draft won’t come close to 2003,” another scout said. “Let’s make that clear right now. Take away the first eight or 10 picks and you’re looking at guys who can contribute on the third and fourth lines, not the first line.”

Avatar
#37 Kurt
May 21 2013, 12:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

I mostly agree with what you are saying... Don't get me wrong. I'm just vehemently against trading down. I'm hoping we trade up (6 ideally, but also the others). I would be ok with staying as is if the cost is too steep (ie one of our existing kids/prospects). But I loathe the concept of trading down.

Avatar
#38 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 01:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kurt

In a realistic but ideal world, how, and who, would you like to see things play out with those picks? Just curious.

Avatar
#39 Kurt
May 21 2013, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

In a realistic but ideal world, how, and who, would you like to see things play out with those picks? Just curious.

OK, in my dream scenario we get #2 or #3 and draft Drouin. I think he could be a cornerstone player for 15 years.

So I'd trade a lot for him. I know Kent suggested a bunch of payments and it was fairly unanimous around these parts that everyone thought he was crazy or it was an overpay. But I do agree it would be expensive. Discussing specific trades is too speculative but I would be willing to trade:

- Any combination of 6, 21 & 30 - Gio, Tanguay, Glencross, Cammi - JohnnyG

Untouchable - Baertschi, Backlund

I know its taboo to suggest I'd be willing to part with JohnnyG, and it is risky. I'm still very spooked by his diminutive size and lack of experience vs men, but thats another discussion. Of all the items listed above that I'd trade, JohnnyG would be the last and most expensive from my perspective, but I wouldn't consider him untouchable.

My DREAM scenario would be to keep 6, and trade 21+30+Glencross or something for 2 or 3 so we had that coveted top 3 pick AND ours. And if that happend I'd want Drouin then Barkov, Lindholm, Monahan in that order. That would be ideal.

I realize this is still vague, perhaps not what you hoped, but I can't really speculate on what it might realistically cost to move up. But for me, I don't see much value in keeping 21 & 30 and I think guys like Glencross & Gio are going to be past their peak by the team this team is ready to compete so I'd be happy to sell high in order to lock up potential organizational changing players like those top 3.

I do conceded that I've also argued none of those top 3 teams would give up their picks.. so I'm admitting I'm a hypocrite. But thats my ideal situation.

Avatar
#40 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kurt

Picking 3rd overall could mean MacKinnon is available. I actually see FLA taking Drouin before Mac. Where do you place him?

Otherwise, that's cool. 21 + 30 + Glenx is an overpay in my estimation but it's all opinion.

Avatar
#41 YOYO
May 21 2013, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would trade our Pittsburgh 1st + for Rundblad of the Coyotes. Big body with some major skill who is ready to play some NHL hockey and does not fit the Phoenix mold. Also with Ekman-Larssen and Yandle there I think he's attainable! We walk away from the draft as winners and all will be envious!

Avatar
#42 Kurt
May 21 2013, 04:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Picking 3rd overall could mean MacKinnon is available. I actually see FLA taking Drouin before Mac. Where do you place him?

Otherwise, that's cool. 21 + 30 + Glenx is an overpay in my estimation but it's all opinion.

Yes it an overpay, I agree... But you pay what the market demands (or don't buy). My opinion on the validity of overpaying revolves around my timeline. I have a longer projection for when this team will be good again based on my desire to see them become a true contender (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA) instead of a playoff bubble pretender (Ottawa, Wild, Tampa).

So I don't mind overpaying with a Glencross type because I feel like by the time we are at the level of Chicago/Pittsburgh/LA he will be on the decline anyways. So we'd be wasting his most valuable years at the bottom end of the rebuild. The overpay would be worth it considering Drouin could reshape the team for 10-12 years (like Iggy did)

Of course, that all goes out the window if the goal is to turn this around fast (which I feel will just lead us back to where we were stuck for 10 years... fighting for 8th perpetually)

Avatar
#43 Kurt
May 21 2013, 04:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

I am really excited to see what happens though! I have completely lost interest in the playoffs (now that Vancouver lost) and just want them to be over so we can get going with the Flames talk and draft and free agency and all the rest!

Avatar
#44 John
May 21 2013, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It is nice turning the page, but make no mistake 3 first round pick is good but you won't see dividends for 2-3 years. This team won't make the playoffs for 3-4 years.

Avatar
#45 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 04:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

I am really excited to see what happens though! I have completely lost interest in the playoffs (now that Vancouver lost) and just want them to be over so we can get going with the Flames talk and draft and free agency and all the rest!

Yep, me too. There is so much that could happen this summer with the Flames being that the cap is going down, a few teams that expected to be contenders and failed (PHI, CAR, NSH etc), CGY having cap space and 3 1st's.

Re: your desire for drafting, I would likely trade the 2 late picks for a top 3 but not with GlenX. If Glenx is involved I would only give 1 of the picks. Otherwise, I would try to add a lesser vet like Tanguay, who really wouldn't factor in with the future and maybe get a 2nd asset.

I don't have interest in Drouin. MacKinnon would be my 1st choice and Barkov the 2nd. If we could walk away with both of those guys or even one of them and either Lindholm or Monahan, I would be very happy. Center position would be covered for years. I hope we move Cammi and get another mid to late pick + and get maybe a guy like Madison Bowey, who I think will be a great D prospect going forward.

Avatar
#46 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 04:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
John wrote:

It is nice turning the page, but make no mistake 3 first round pick is good but you won't see dividends for 2-3 years. This team won't make the playoffs for 3-4 years.

Likely, but it really depends on what Feaster does with his cap space. Those that are hoping for a slow rebuild EDM style may want to prepare for something else.

I have no doubt that Feaster and crew will be trying to add this year and be competitive right away. Whether they are able to accomplish this remains to be seen. But I have no reservations in saying CGY will be trying to pluck decent buy outs or offer their cap space to teams in trouble.

Avatar
#47 Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea
May 21 2013, 04:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Picking 3rd overall could mean MacKinnon is available. I actually see FLA taking Drouin before Mac. Where do you place him?

Otherwise, that's cool. 21 + 30 + Glenx is an overpay in my estimation but it's all opinion.

That's not an overpay for one of the top three (or four). I would not trade the opportunity to draft Jones, MacKinnon, Drouin, or Barkov for our 21 + 30 + Glenx. If we could get one of he top four to bite on that then we take it and run. We're starting to sound like Leafs fans in the way we over estimate the trade value of our players.

Avatar
#48 T&A4Flames
May 21 2013, 05:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea wrote:

That's not an overpay for one of the top three (or four). I would not trade the opportunity to draft Jones, MacKinnon, Drouin, or Barkov for our 21 + 30 + Glenx. If we could get one of he top four to bite on that then we take it and run. We're starting to sound like Leafs fans in the way we over estimate the trade value of our players.

It's all opinion and it goes beyond "trade value." You have to keep in mind the value these players/picks will have with the team going forward. If you value an unproven commodity more than those 3 assets, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Avatar
#49 Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea
May 21 2013, 05:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

Fair comment. I would also say that our 21 and 30 are unproven commodities and have far less chance of becoming highly productive assets than picks #1-4.

Avatar
#50 Austin
May 21 2013, 08:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In response to the proposition of trading for one of the top 3 picks, I would be completely for it. Problem is Colorado isn't giving theirs up, neither is Florida. Tampa Bay probably would and so would Nashville. It we could swing a top 4 pick without giving up our #6 do whatever it takes. The issue is is that Feaster will try to make the playoffs. Also, likely out most valuable asset , Glencross, has been made untouchable by Feaster. He is basically Milan Lucic but smaller with a better contract. If Glencross were available, I would do Glencross , #22 and 30 to Tampa for #3 and Lecavalier. Murray Edwards can man up on that one. How badly does he want to win? In regards to Nashville, I'm thinking #30 #22, and our third round pick could do it. If they want a player, then Gio and #30.

I never considered the fact that Barkov could fall to us simply because I didn't think it was possible. Anything is possible I mean we saw Grigorenko and Forsberf fall 5 spots. Even if only one of Carolina or Nadhville go off the board, that means Lindholm essentially falls into our lap which I'm fine with. I still think this is quite a deep draft regardless. If Carolina and Nashville want guys like Monahan and Nurse, they could probably just trade down for those guys. They would never pick them at #5 and #4. If they did I would cry tears of joy.

Comments are closed for this article.