Five things: Oh I don't know

Ryan Lambert
May 30 2013 10:35AM

1. The Flames' draft strategy

So the NHL's website has been talking to various teams' officials in recent weeks and talking about the strategies those organizations will employ once the draft rolls around. Earlier this week, they talked to John Weisbrod about what the Flames plan to do.

And hey, look, I don't want to make it out like I'm immediately dismissive of their strategy late next month, but when he got right down to things, ideas like "drafting for need" came up. Which obviously infuriated me for different reasons.

"Once you get to the later rounds, drafting out of need becomes dangerous because you're talking about longer-term development projects and the immediate needs of your team from what the needs are going to be in two to three years," Weisbrod told NHL.com.

This obviously ignores the fact that this is the case, you know, with the guy they picked in the first round last year. In the case of most drafts, I think, once you get out of the first five picks, or even 10 at the very outside, you're waiting two or three years at least for prospects to develop into NHL-ready players, and that means that drafting for need is — you guessed it — stupid as hell. The idea that the Flames might get an NHL-ready guy at No. 6 (or slightly higher if they trade up) is a nice one, but even in deep drafts, how many guys taken outside the top 5 are that ready every year?

Weisbrod says that the draft is deepest at forward and he is of course right about that 100 percent. It just so happens the Flames' biggest need is at forward, any position, so whoever they get at No. 6 is likely to fit their need, but if that's the draft philosophy at 22 or 27-30, then this team is in deeper trouble than I thought.

2. Germane to that discussion

Another thing Weisbrod brought up, and it's one that I honestly hadn't considered, is the idea of trading some of their picks for roster help now. When I read that, I just started laughing.

I don't know who they'd target and I don't know why they'd do it, other than the fact that as Weisbrod says, they simply don't have the warm bodies to fill out an NHL roster this season. I think this probably goes back to the absurd mandate that the team must make the playoffs next season or heads will roll. It's an idea I think Flames fans should find distasteful, because it once again involves the acknowledgement of a need to rebuild without the actual desire to commit to it.

Who do they target on the trade market that's young enough to be impactful for several years while the team rebuilds and also can be had for a reasonable asking price that doesn't involve No. 6 overall? You have to think that list is extremely short.

3. Adios to Babchuk

So Anton Babchuk is joining short-term teammate Roman Cervenka in returning to the KHL, which is just about right. The Flames won't miss these guys more than they'd miss any other NHL-replacement-level AHLers, and maybe they'll be even happier because they won't have to pay them a combined $6.275 million against the cap (which, holy hell).

That got me thinking about just how bad the KHL must be if they'll welcome these guys with open arms after they flamed out so badly (no pun intended) with Calgary. They were both abjectly awful for the club, and this was one that had a lot of holes to fill and few options to fill them. When they couldn't hack it with the Calgary f'n Flames, the fact that anyone would take them at all should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of that league.

Hopefully for the Flames, this discourages Jay Feaster from ever wading back into that water in search of a high-quality player again. Honestly, can you think of any NHL players who were superstars in that Russian league who wound up being of even passable quality in the NHL? I'm having difficulty, and I think that's a good enough indicator that the well there should be considered extremely dry.

Yes, I know. Karri Ramo. We'll see how that goes. Don't expect it to go well.

4. TSN's offseason plans

Much like NHL.com doing a draft preview, TSN fantasy guru Scott Cullen is previewing the offseason plans of the various teams that didn't make the playoffs. As you might imagine, that stuff about the mandate to make the playoffs came up, which in turn prompted him to note two things:

1) That they might have been in the conversation at least if they got slightly-better-than-average goaltending, instead of substantially-below-average goaltending this year.

2) That there is a significant need to acquire high-quality players.

"Feaster's challenge is acquiring top-end talent, whether through draft, trades or free agent signings. While the Flames have solid pros scattered throughout the roster, they don't have guys at the top end of the talent scale," he wrote.

Well no kidding.

I can't remember who it was, but someone on Twitter earlier today brought up the idea that the Flames seem like the most likely team to make a run at Valtteri Filppula, and boy doesn't that sound right/like a bad idea? So of course that's exactly what's going to happen.

5. Sorry pardner

Go Pens I guess.

686dfac3780611cb7acad6ce5166c6c1
Yer ol' buddy Lambert is handsome and great and everyone loves him. Also you can visit his regular blog at The Two-Line Pass or follow him on Twitter. Lucky you!
Avatar
#1 piscera.infada
May 30 2013, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

In short - "if this team does anything, it will be wrong."

Thank you for that.

Avatar
#2 Baalzamon
May 30 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In fairness to the KHL, Babchuk was also terrible when he was playing over there during the lockout.

"Honestly, can you think of any NHL players who were superstars in that Russian league who wound up being of even passable quality in the NHL?"

Radulov, Jagr.

Pekka Rinne was straight-up terrible in the KHL for some reason. Chara was only okay. Evander Kane was useless.

Avatar
#3 danglesnipecelly
May 30 2013, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
piscera.infada wrote:

In short - "if this team does anything, it will be wrong."

Thank you for that.

And if they do nothing, that will be wrong to.

Avatar
#4 mattyc
May 30 2013, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm not sure I understand any of your arguments...

Avatar
#6 Lordmork
May 30 2013, 11:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Another sunshine and rainbows update. Can't blame you for calling it like you see it, I suppose.

Avatar
#7 RustyStrombone
May 30 2013, 11:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@Ryan Lambert

With that logic, Ramo wouldn't apply to your theory (played in the NHL before going over there).

Along the same lines as Piscera's comment - Lambert, while you are very rightfully concerned with/critical of the direction the club has been heading, you seem to bash every and any thing the club might do moving forward.

Perhaps by providing an opinion of what the team needs to do moving forward, or by suggesting an alternative to the moves that you are critical of, these articles would be of more value to the readers of this site.

On the other hand, you do provide fodder for the comments section, so thank you for that.

Avatar
#8 Rockmorton65
May 30 2013, 11:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

One of the reasons I'm so optimistic is tha whoever they take in the first round is going to improve the Flames. (Within reason of course)

Avatar
#9 durrr
May 30 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

point 1: I suppose if you bothered to actually read the rest of the quote you linked to you would've noted that he qualified drafting for immediate positional need as a way to choose between equally ranked players and only in the first round.

Which seems reasonable and doesn't preclude that they might draft a player with higher upside needing a couple years of development over an NHL-ready player...

But I suppose selectively quoting out of context supports your ongoing narrative that the flames management is and always will be completely inept?

Point 2: Should the Flames be completely adverse to trying to improve this team in any meaningful way outside of the draft? If a young roster player like Burmistrov is available, is it unreasonable to see if he can be had for a low first and something else?

Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka? 3M in cap space on a one-year deal? Any assets? No. Any prospect who should've been playing get robbed of ice time? No. So Cervenka underwhelmed, that means the Flames should never try to sign a player from the KHL forever, ever?

Point 4: I do expect the Flames to sign a couple UFAs, not to make the playoffs, but to avoid putting the 1st and 2nd year players in hard minute situations. Because that is going to get ugly... quickly.

Point 5: About the only point I agree on... i guess?

Avatar
#10 Jeff Lebowski
May 30 2013, 12:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Re:Weisbrod's comments, I don't know why any executive would tip their hand as to what their plans are. I read the article and he seemed to lay out all the different scenarios teams consider and that Calgary will weigh all of them.

It was an expansive answer which gave no hint as to what they actually will do.

I could be wrong but it seemed like mis information in the sense of counter business intelligence ie confuse your competitors to your intentions.

In any event, it's all just talk until June 30.

The actual strategies being discussed by teams would be a dream to observe. Game theory-esque mock drafts, trades, player/prospect evaluations.

It would be fun to have the nations (plus others to round out 30 teams) do a mock draft including trades for players and/or picks.

Avatar
#11 Dr. Philosophy
May 30 2013, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Hate to be that guy, but I've got to point out that the "you can't name me one guy" argument for KHL badness doesn't work. You would have to show you can't name anyone because the league is worse, rather than because of some other factor, like, say, the fact that the KHL pays less making more guys start in the NHL in the first place, or cultural factors making superstars not want to come to NA. Hell, for every Chara-esque hero there's 3 Babchuck/Cervenka/Radulov/Kostitsyn scapegoats--I'd seriously consider that if I were a Russian thinking about making the jump.

Also, when team news is slow, I for one think it's ok to abandon the "5 things" paradigm. No sense forcing it. How about "4 things", "3 things", or "This is what's been on my mind in the last week or so, listed in order of time spent thinking about."

Avatar
#12 Avalain
May 30 2013, 12:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

Re:Weisbrod's comments, I don't know why any executive would tip their hand as to what their plans are. I read the article and he seemed to lay out all the different scenarios teams consider and that Calgary will weigh all of them.

It was an expansive answer which gave no hint as to what they actually will do.

I could be wrong but it seemed like mis information in the sense of counter business intelligence ie confuse your competitors to your intentions.

In any event, it's all just talk until June 30.

The actual strategies being discussed by teams would be a dream to observe. Game theory-esque mock drafts, trades, player/prospect evaluations.

It would be fun to have the nations (plus others to round out 30 teams) do a mock draft including trades for players and/or picks.

I agree with the idea of having a mock draft! It would be really interesting to compare them to what really happens. Even more interesting would be how accurate, in terms of who should have been picked, the mock draft is compared to the real draft (after a few years).

Avatar
#13 calgaryfan
May 30 2013, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Ryan, did you actually read the whole Weisbrod interview? He seems like an intelligent honest man trying to do the best for the Flames.

Avatar
#14 Kent Wilson
May 30 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

A mock draft is in the works.

Avatar
#15 McRib
May 30 2013, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Watching KHL games on TV during the lockout, it doesn't surprise me at all that they have a hard time adjusting to the North American style. No one in that league has ever heard of a stop and start, its bazaar they just coast around and pick it up when a breakdown occurs. The game has a bit more flow than ours but absolutely no structure to speak of. Look at how hard of a time Ovi had readjusting to the NHL game after the lockout. Whats even more interesting is of all the major junior/ pro leagues the KHL has the lowest scoring. It seems that they unaware of how to grind out goals.

Avatar
#16 Kevin R
May 30 2013, 12:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Well this read is sure like the weather out there. Maybe I'll just slash now instead of waiting to see how badly the Flames muck the draft. Or....... I could wait for the sun to come out this weekend & decide to wait & see what happens at the draft before I do any slashing......

Avatar
#17 CDB
May 30 2013, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Can someone else please read the Weisbrod interviews. I sure didn't come away with the same take aways. Seems you read some snippets and made some leaps and larger inferences with what Weisbrod was saying

Avatar
#18 McRib
May 30 2013, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

This draft is so good I don't think you could screw it up if you wanted to, unless of course they take Zack Fucale with one of the firsts... People we are set for goaltenders, leave it alone. LOL. Plus Tristan Jarry is a way better tendy than Fucale in my eyes. First rounders are in such high demand this year, I think Weisbrod would be stupid not to at least test the water with the Pittsburgh pick. If you can get a Top Six forward for that pick why not... As we would already have had two top prospects from the 6th (Monahan) and 22nd (Rychel?).

Avatar
#19 danglesnipecelly
May 30 2013, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Speaking of mock drafts, I've read what seems like 100 of them including the 3 on the Flames site today from staffers. I've read in 3 different mock drafts now, including one of the staffer's, that the Flames will/should/are expected to take Fucale with one of the later 1st round picks? WTF? I can't think of a less likely pick for Cgy in the first round... Am I missing something?

I suppose any yahoo can post a mock draft but still....

Avatar
#20 Kent Wilson
May 30 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yeah I really hope the Flames aren't thinking of taking Fucale in the first round. Or any goalies in the top-90 picks for that matter.

Avatar
#21 Glenn
May 30 2013, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I was at the Flames reception last night with King and Feaster.

Although I am not a big fan of either of these guys, I was cautiously optimistic with the comments that were made about the upcoming draft.

Here's the gist of it.

The Flames will not trade down on the 6th overall pick. They are very interested in trading up though and Tampa Bay is their most likely target.

Looks like they are very afraid of Nicushkin but also think he will get picked before # 6.

Reading between the lines, I would also say Tanguay gets a buyout.

I'm not opposed to any of this.

Avatar
#22 FireOnIce
May 30 2013, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

The comment about Tampa being their "most likely target" really pisses me off. Feaster is going to trade for Lecavalier is what that tells me.

And yeah, everything I've taken away from recent talk is that Tanguay is done as a Flame. He only wanted to be here with Iginla (same with Cammy), so it's time to part ways.

Avatar
#23 Glenn
May 30 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@FireOnIce

But its not your money when we buy him out.

Avatar
#24 Scary Gary
May 30 2013, 01:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
durrr wrote:

point 1: I suppose if you bothered to actually read the rest of the quote you linked to you would've noted that he qualified drafting for immediate positional need as a way to choose between equally ranked players and only in the first round.

Which seems reasonable and doesn't preclude that they might draft a player with higher upside needing a couple years of development over an NHL-ready player...

But I suppose selectively quoting out of context supports your ongoing narrative that the flames management is and always will be completely inept?

Point 2: Should the Flames be completely adverse to trying to improve this team in any meaningful way outside of the draft? If a young roster player like Burmistrov is available, is it unreasonable to see if he can be had for a low first and something else?

Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka? 3M in cap space on a one-year deal? Any assets? No. Any prospect who should've been playing get robbed of ice time? No. So Cervenka underwhelmed, that means the Flames should never try to sign a player from the KHL forever, ever?

Point 4: I do expect the Flames to sign a couple UFAs, not to make the playoffs, but to avoid putting the 1st and 2nd year players in hard minute situations. Because that is going to get ugly... quickly.

Point 5: About the only point I agree on... i guess?

Agreed!

Avatar
#25 danglesnipecelly
May 30 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

If we make a trade and get TB's 1st pick and have to take on Vinny's contract I have no problem with that whatsoever. As long as it doesn't cost us any other picks/prospects other than say the Ferlands and Granlunds of the world...

Like you say it's not my money when we buy him out... one good thing about Edwards - his wallet.

Avatar
#26 Avalain
May 30 2013, 01:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

A mock draft is in the works.

Hurray!

Avatar
#27 Glenn
May 30 2013, 02:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@danglesnipecelly

Yes i agree danglesnipecelly. If we take that albatross contract we had better not give up anything else.

Might be nice to have Vinney here next year though and take the compliance buyout after the year. That would give Barkov a year to acclimatize himself. Maybe Backlund will be more ready for first line minutes by then too.

Avatar
#28 danglesnipecelly
May 30 2013, 02:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Glenn wrote:

Yes i agree danglesnipecelly. If we take that albatross contract we had better not give up anything else.

Might be nice to have Vinney here next year though and take the compliance buyout after the year. That would give Barkov a year to acclimatize himself. Maybe Backlund will be more ready for first line minutes by then too.

Agreed, keep Vinny for one year... is he really that bad at this point in his career or is it just that contract that makes him so unappealing?

I'm legitimately asking - I haven't paid much attention to Vinny the last few years.... I mean the guy is 33 years old so "post apex" for sure but he's 6'4" 215lbs and finished last year 4th in team scoring with 10 goals and 22 assists in 39 games, -5.

Maybe Kent can throw some advanced stats our way?

Avatar
#29 Parallex
May 30 2013, 02:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
piscera.infada wrote:

In short - "if this team does anything, it will be wrong."

Thank you for that.

Yeah, Ryan's become really repetative... If the team does anything (including nothing) it will always be declare wrong. It's getting to the level where I think the feature ought to be renamed Negative Nitpickery because it looks like he's actively searching for things to complain about.

I'm at the point where whenever I se a "Five Things" I'm disappointed that it's not a WOWY, Draft Profile, or any other regular or semi-regular feature.

Avatar
#30 piscera.infada
May 30 2013, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Glenn

This is kind of the way I feel about a possible Vinny trade.

I don't think for a minute that it will happen. I just don't see any businessman willing to part with the ~$30,000,000 (2/3 of Vinny's $45,000,000 salary remaining) over the next 14 years.

However, if Edwards decides to go all Rob Ford, and in a crack-induced spending spree (nyuck, nyuck - bad joke I know), thinks this is a sound financial decision - all the power to him. I will not argue it for a minute, because I think saving the bacon of a team to that extent is worth a ton.

Avatar
#31 Avalain
May 30 2013, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
FireOnIce wrote:

The comment about Tampa being their "most likely target" really pisses me off. Feaster is going to trade for Lecavalier is what that tells me.

And yeah, everything I've taken away from recent talk is that Tanguay is done as a Flame. He only wanted to be here with Iginla (same with Cammy), so it's time to part ways.

Really? If we take on Lecavalier's contract for Tampa's 1st I would be ecstatic! Well, assuming we actually follow that up by buying him out. If the owners want to spend their money to improve the team, I say go for it.

There's no chance at all that they would take Tanguay, our St. Louis 1st, and our Pitts 1st for their 1st is there? Maybe if we toss in something else? It's just that if we pick 3rd I think there is a really good chance that we pick Drouin and without our 6th we may be missing out on that 1st line center we need so badly.

Avatar
#32 Kent Wilson
May 30 2013, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@danglesnipecelly

Vinny has been mediocre from an underlying stats perspective for years. He's also injury prone and likely to fall off a cliff here in the next few seasons just due to his age alone.

The contract is merely bad right now. As soon as he takes even a modest step back in any way, it will be a disaster.

Avatar
#33 Avalain
May 30 2013, 02:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Glenn wrote:

Yes i agree danglesnipecelly. If we take that albatross contract we had better not give up anything else.

Might be nice to have Vinney here next year though and take the compliance buyout after the year. That would give Barkov a year to acclimatize himself. Maybe Backlund will be more ready for first line minutes by then too.

Wait...we can do that? I thought the compliance buyout had to be done this year?

Of course, buying him out and letting Tampa sign him back makes the deal much more tempting for them, so there's value there as well.

Avatar
#34 Jeff Lebowski
May 30 2013, 02:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Does anyone think there is any scenario of a trade with TBL that doesn't include Vinny?

Would Feaster consider Vinny post apex? It seems he didn't for Richards.

Avatar
#35 piscera.infada
May 30 2013, 02:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
piscera.infada wrote:

This is kind of the way I feel about a possible Vinny trade.

I don't think for a minute that it will happen. I just don't see any businessman willing to part with the ~$30,000,000 (2/3 of Vinny's $45,000,000 salary remaining) over the next 14 years.

However, if Edwards decides to go all Rob Ford, and in a crack-induced spending spree (nyuck, nyuck - bad joke I know), thinks this is a sound financial decision - all the power to him. I will not argue it for a minute, because I think saving the bacon of a team to that extent is worth a ton.

Sorry, to quantify this, there is no way we take him if the plan isn't to use a compliance buyout.

Thus, the buyout can be used either this year or next June (which, as mentioned above is probably the more apt scenario). This would leave Edwards with only (obviously a gargantuan understatement) ~$24,000,000 over 12 years.

- Is my understanding of all this correct, Ken?

As stated by Glenn and Danglesnipe (I think), taking on that mammoth contract should be enough to net us quite a return, without having to give up a good prospect. It only works (again) if Edwards is drunk and likes the idea. And, if Tampa values the "helping-hand" as much as I think they should.

Avatar
#36 piscera.infada
May 30 2013, 02:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Avalain

Read above. My understanding is that it's this summer 2013 or summer 2014.

Avatar
#37 BurningSensation
May 30 2013, 02:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
durrr wrote:

point 1: I suppose if you bothered to actually read the rest of the quote you linked to you would've noted that he qualified drafting for immediate positional need as a way to choose between equally ranked players and only in the first round.

Which seems reasonable and doesn't preclude that they might draft a player with higher upside needing a couple years of development over an NHL-ready player...

But I suppose selectively quoting out of context supports your ongoing narrative that the flames management is and always will be completely inept?

Point 2: Should the Flames be completely adverse to trying to improve this team in any meaningful way outside of the draft? If a young roster player like Burmistrov is available, is it unreasonable to see if he can be had for a low first and something else?

Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka? 3M in cap space on a one-year deal? Any assets? No. Any prospect who should've been playing get robbed of ice time? No. So Cervenka underwhelmed, that means the Flames should never try to sign a player from the KHL forever, ever?

Point 4: I do expect the Flames to sign a couple UFAs, not to make the playoffs, but to avoid putting the 1st and 2nd year players in hard minute situations. Because that is going to get ugly... quickly.

Point 5: About the only point I agree on... i guess?

You beat me to it. Lambert is descending quickly into a being little more than an Oiler 'concern troll'.

Avatar
#38 Avalain
May 30 2013, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@piscera.infada

Oh, that does make the whole thing a bit more palatable. Thanks!

Avatar
#39 Graham
May 30 2013, 03:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

'Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka?'

Not much on paper, but Feaster was so convinced that Cervenka was a top 6 center that he didn't go out and actually sign one. Depth at center was one of the major failing's last year, and it really kicked the Flames in the behind. What did Cervenka cost us... a missed opportunity and points in the standings.

Avatar
#40 BurningSensation
May 30 2013, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

Under the new CBA teams can 'eat' salary in trades, but how does that work in the event of a buyout?

Say Feaster trades for #3 (Barkov? Drouin?), and has to take Vinny back, but;

- He gets Tampa Bay to eat $2M yr for 5 years

- This makes Cgy's commitment to him; $8, 8, 8, 6.5, 4, 1.5, 1.5 = $37.5M

- The buy out would be for 2/3rds of that, or just over $21M spread over 14 years

- Essentially Cgy would be buying the #3 overall for $21M in cash, and aprx $1.5M in cap space for the next decade and a half.

So my questions are, if we buy out Vinny in this scenario,

- Does the portion still owed by Tbay ($10M) get 'bought out' as well?

- Can Tbay re-sign him?

Avatar
#41 everton fc
May 30 2013, 03:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Maybe we can move Tanguay to the Rangers, as part of a package that would include Derek Dorsett coming to Alberta? Amongst other things...

Or maybe move Cammy to NYR, for a similar package...

I think a guy like Dorsett is a real need here. For a rebuild. In the dressing room. For the young guys to look up to.

Remember - nothing "straight-up" here. I'm no loon.

Avatar
#42 Primo
May 30 2013, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Avalain wrote:

I agree with the idea of having a mock draft! It would be really interesting to compare them to what really happens. Even more interesting would be how accurate, in terms of who should have been picked, the mock draft is compared to the real draft (after a few years).

I agree any bright executive does not reveal actual strategy. AT least I'm hoping so.....trading picks for roster players is a Darryl Sutter strategy that get's you locked into "LOSER" land. That's exactly where we are today.

Avatar
#43 RexLibris
May 30 2013, 03:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Feaster quit the Lightning over the proposed Lecavalier contract. Ownership wanted the contract signed, he refused and walked.

I would be very, very surprised if he traded for that now.

The Flames may be targeting the Lightning in trade negotiations, but there is nothing to suggest that the Lightning are necessarily reciprocating.

What do the Flames have that the Lightning and Steve Yzerman would want and feel is adequate value for trading down? Goaltending? Nothing better than Bishop at this stage. Wingers? Baertschi is the best thing on offer and I don't see his development thus far as being equivalent to that. Backlund might be of interest, and perhaps Brodie, but neither of them would seem intriguing enough players to warrant that kind of move.

The best assets the Flames have are those extra 1st round picks. Moving from 3rd to 6th and getting back the 21st pick as well might be worth it to the Lightning. Virtually any deal to move up will make sense to the Flames, but it has to work for the Lightning's long-term goals as well.

Avatar
#44 piscera.infada
May 30 2013, 04:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@RexLibris

As has been stated here ad nauseum; I guess it depends on what Yzerman thinks he has. He has a star player in his prime at 7.5 mill a season, and as we've heard for more than a year, they're a goalie away from being a team that can compete. So if they want cap flexibility (they have just over 3 million for next year with 17 players under contract) then that's your greatest asset to offer.

Like I said, I don't think it will ever happen. I just kind of find the prospect interesting.

Sorry, I will stop beating this dead horse now.

Avatar
#45 schevvy
May 30 2013, 04:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Iggy :(

There is no chance in hell the Flames trade for Vinny and then proceed to buy him out. Remember, this is the same owner who would not spend the money to bury Kotalik in the minors. In comparison to Vinny's contract, Kotalik's deal was pocket change. So, unfortunately this will not happen.

Not really related, but I see that Reggie signed a new deal with LA. Is Darryl in charge there now? 3M per year for 2 years is a lot to give to a guy whose knees are shot. Always liked Reggie but that's a little nuts.

Avatar
#46 Baalzamon
May 30 2013, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Graham wrote:

'Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka?'

Not much on paper, but Feaster was so convinced that Cervenka was a top 6 center that he didn't go out and actually sign one. Depth at center was one of the major failing's last year, and it really kicked the Flames in the behind. What did Cervenka cost us... a missed opportunity and points in the standings.

Oh, and we know the absolute plethora of 2nd line centers available. If only we could have signed... uh... um... well...

Oh right, there was nobody.

Avatar
#47 Baalzamon
May 30 2013, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@schevvy

I don't think that applies, because the Flames were getting NOTHING out of Kotalik and his contract, whereas they'd be getting a top 3 pick out of Tampa's.

I'm not saying I think or hope it will happen--because neither is true--but the Kotalik situation is pretty much completely unrelated.

Avatar
#48 Avalain
May 30 2013, 05:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Graham wrote:

'Point 3: What did the Flames really give up for cervenka?'

Not much on paper, but Feaster was so convinced that Cervenka was a top 6 center that he didn't go out and actually sign one. Depth at center was one of the major failing's last year, and it really kicked the Flames in the behind. What did Cervenka cost us... a missed opportunity and points in the standings.

What top 6 center was there to be signed? If I remember correctly there was really no one. At least, no one who wanted to come here.

I'm pretty sure Feaster took what he could get.

Avatar
#49 Kent Wilson
May 30 2013, 06:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BurningSensation

Tbay can't re-sign him I'm sure. Otherwise, I'd have to research.

Avatar
#50 Justin Azevedo
May 30 2013, 06:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

afaik tb could resign him if the flames were the ones to buy him out. the contractual commitment for the 2 mil would be with the flames, not the player, right?

Comments are closed for this article.