Five things: One goalie thing, then draft stuff

Ryan Lambert
May 09 2013 09:16AM

1. Goaltending looking clearer

As I noted last week, just based on the number of guys currently holding onto contracts, and even with Miikka Kiprusoff all but set to retire, there had to be one guy left out in the cold. It seems, as any rational person might have guessed, that Leland Irving, the former first round pick, is the one who's not long for the Flames organization.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing for either party.

Things just weren't working with his development, or his position with either Calgary or Abbotsford, and thus the now-out-of-contract netminder seems unlikely to wedge his way back into the pile. Ritch Winter, who represents Irving, is obviously going to tell everyone who'll listen — including the Herald this week — that this is a guy who like Tomas Vokoun and Dominic Hasek before him (not that I recall Hasek ever having been beaten out by a Danny Taylor type), has all the tools but needs the time to figure it out.

He'll be doing it elsewhere. Winter says there'll be plenty of interest. That's fine. It's not Calgary's lookout any more, but it is another in a long line of torched first-round picks that never really went anywhere. Speaking of which...

2. Drafting remains problematic

Calgary is picking sixth this year, which, if I'm not mistaken, is tied for the highest they've ever taken anyone in an entry draft ever, and that's without taking into account Jay Feaster's vague proclamations about the team having some amount of intent to move up in the draft.

As much as I've seen and heard that people think the quality of this year's first 40 or 50 picks could end up rivaling those taken in 2003 — high praise indeed — I've thought for a while that sixth is the absolute worst spot the Flames could possibly pick given the team's penchant for being dumb as hell when its name gets called in the first round. For every Sven Baertschi or Mikael Backlund since Todd Button started running things, there's been at least two Greg Nemiszes and Rico Fatas and Brent Krahns and ... good lord there have been a lot of garbage first-round picks.

The Mark Jankowski pick last year was certainly emblematic of the problem, and the thing that puzzles and intrigues and terrifies me about this year's No. 6 pick is that it's just outside that area of prospects that will be for-sure-good players in the NHL.

Well, let me rephrase. I think the guy they get at six will probably be good. But the likelihood that he will not is increased somewhat significantly by the fact that they're not likely to have access to, say, the Barkovs or Nichushkins of the world, and choosing who will be best of the Nurses and Lindholms and Monahans will probably leave them most likely to make the worst selection possible (just based on Occam's Razor) and select that Shinkaruk kid who nobody seems to like despite his appearance in the top 10 of every mock draft.

You just have to assume they won't take the right guy. That's what they do.

3. Before you ask

I know people will want to give the Flames credit for snagging Johnny Gaudreau or TJ Brodie in the fourth round, for instance. But I'm not really one to go around slinging a lot of credit to anyone for drafting in the late rounds.

At that point you're just throwing darts at a constantly-moving dartboard and anything you can get out of any player you pick from the second round on is, I think, more or less a crapshoot. Not that guys aren't completely scouted and not that guys aren't targeted to some extent, but it's so rare that you get an impact player that far away from the first round that you really can't go around crowing about drafting acumen if you just happen to snag Pavel Datsyuk in the sixth round; if you were so sure he'd be even a half-decent player, you'd sure have taken him before Tomek Valtonen in the second round, right?

The Flames have indeed had limited amounts of success in selecting guys in the later rounds in the last few years — Keith Aulie has 121 NHL games under his belt, if you can believe that — but when you're taking guys in the late rounds that are getting more games in the bigs than your first selections in any given draft, you're still not picking that well.

4. So here's what I'm hoping

Call me a pessimist (noooooooo!) but the way I view the Flames having three first-round picks this season is their having the ability to make three missteps. I really, really, really hope they package the sixth and one of the other two with a veteran in an effort to move up into the top-5 and take at least some of the guesswork out of their selection.

The simpler it is for them to make a decision like that, the better it will be for all involved. Again, you really have to trust this amateur scouting staff about as far as you can throw it collectively, rather than individually, and the best thing they could possibly do is move up to No. 1 and hope like hell Feaster doesn't go up there and accidentally say "Jonathan Drouin," which is something he might accidentally do given the opportunity.

If you're a Flames fan, how does this scenario not fill you with dread, existential and otherwise?

5. Not much else going on this week in Flamesland

So...

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 Austin
May 09 2013, 11:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Flamesnation is what keeps me going after watching those depressing games. Keep up the good work boys. I really like the idea of picking Lindholm. I could see him being like a Zetterberg. Wouldn't that be wonderful. Problem is, I think someone like Nashville or or Carolina might like him enough to take him in the top 5. If Nichuskin falls to us I don't know what to do. He is better than Lindholm and Barkov, but the KHL factor scares me. I just really hope that Feaster has a good translator when they interview Nichuskin. Has the potential to be a Malkin. If we're not going to pick Nichuskin at 6, and Lindholm and Barkov are gone by then, I hope we trade down a bit because we can still good a good guy like Ristolainen at 9 or around there. I'd like to see us package our two first rounders to move up. Also Kent, or somebody else, if New York beats Pittsburgh and L.A beats St. Louis, does that mean our picks will be in the 15-20 range if both the teams are eliminated in the first round?

Avatar
#2 Double Dion
May 09 2013, 03:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@BurningSensation

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

Avatar
#3 seve927
May 09 2013, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Double Dion wrote:

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

Well stated. I'm always defending Feaster, but it's because he's usually getting lambasted for stuff that's really not his doing. I wouldn't disagree much with anything you've said here.

Avatar
#4 Double Dion
May 10 2013, 03:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Jeff Lebowski

I disagree, you can evaluate prospects based on what they did this year outside of the NHL. For example, Gaudreau is a better prospect than Ferland. It doesn't mean either will or won't play in the NHL, but one is clearly better than the other. Teravainen had a fantastic year and almost doubled his point totals playing in the top finnish league. Sieloff and Jankowski (which is fair since they got both, my apologies for not including Sieloff) didn't.

Sieloff's had 3 goals, 8 assists and was -9. His best attribute is his physicality, but he's not a great defender and doesn't bring any offense. He was one point away from being the lowest scoring regular on his junior club.

Jankowski put up 7 goals and 18 points in the NCAA. A far inferior league to the finnish elite league.

Clearly Teravainen looks to be a much, much better pick at this point than the two prospects we took instead. Just like no one would trade a top pairing defenseman for 2 6/7 type guys, giving up a high end prospect for two mediocre ones is poor asset management.

Avatar
#5 Kent Wilson
May 09 2013, 09:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

You have to give Rich Winter credit - he's going to sell the hell out of his client, no matter how out of touch with reality his optimism sounds.

Avatar
#6 Parallex
May 09 2013, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Feaster didn't make proclamations about moving up. He basically just said that the Flames first round pick is basically untouchable and that if it moves at all it will only be to move up. I didn't take it as a "I intend to move up in the draft" declaration but more a "I have no intentions of moving down".

Avatar
#7 Ed Ward
May 09 2013, 09:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm not sure I totally agree with your pessimism about picking 6th. That's not to say I'm not totally on board with your assessment of the Flames horrendous drafting record but I think there could be a great player available at 6. The more I've read about Lindholm, great numbers in a man's league, the more I'd be happy with taking him at 6. I think the real drop off comes after 6 when you get into the Monahan/Nurse territory. That being said I'd be in total favour of using one of our later first rounders to move up into the top-4. I think there's a half way decent chance that even at 6 this draft may be idiot proof. Knowing the Flames though, I'll probably end up eating my words.

Avatar
#8 Emir
May 09 2013, 09:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just finished ready pronmans top 10 draft. Interesting enough he called the top six "all star" taken and then 7-10 "top talent." he had barkov at 5 and lindholm at 6. So interesting to see if indeed is like that and does it play out that way.

no matter where the "all star" talents stop, I'm worried of another crazy left field type move. Won't know until the day and until its done!

Avatar
#9 danglesnipecelly
May 09 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

So we should trade TWO first round picks and a roster player to move up a few spots? Garbage. If draft picks are lottery tickets as everyone on here seems to like to say or darts thrown at a board then why not have three tix? Three darts to throw? I get what you're saying about the elite top four or five but still...

FN is tough to read sometimes. The negativity wears me out. I know it's been a tough go the last several years but I think most fans are desperate to have something positive to hope for... like the draft. FN is sometimes like watching the evening news and that's not a favourable comparison. I stopped watching the news a long time ago...

Avatar
#10 suba steve
May 09 2013, 10:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm optimistic, given the last two drafts. Having followed the draft for over 20 years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of Barkov or Nichushkin is there at #6.

However, knowing that Janko was a "project" pick, can they afford to spend the #6 pick on another possible project in Nichushkin? He seems to be a different kind of project, but a project nonetheless. If he is available at the Flames pick, it sounds like he is almost certainly the best player available. Hoping they are doing their homework on all these top end players and get to know what motivates them and what they could expect from investing their pick in each and every one of them.

I hear you on the trading up angle, but the green monster in me wants three future stars in the first round rather then one or two, even though I know it's unlikely. Roll the dice with the three firsts if the scouting staff sees some nice tallent available, unless someone blows you away with an offer for one of the later two picks.

On goalies, M A Fleury may be available this summer as a salary dump, and we could send MacBackup in return if given some other nice pieces for swallowing that salary.

I hope it's an interesting summer for Flames fans.

Avatar
#11 Derzie
May 09 2013, 10:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What's with the shot at Drouin. Right now he is looking like number one in a lot of circles. He is in mine as well. We have no prayer at getting him anyway. If we pick a goalie, a d-man or a college player in the 1st, failure.

Avatar
#12 Kent Wilson
May 09 2013, 10:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@danglesnipecelly

Unfortunately, when your team is mediocre or bad, the news and analysis is generally bad as well. It's inescapable.

That said, FN is not merely the domain of the pessimist. We were the only ones defending Mikael Backlund last year when he was beleaguered. We projected TJ Brodie as a high-end prospect more or less before anyone else. We have profiled guys like John Gaudreau and Sven Baertschi in detail and at length because they are exciting players. Hell, I spent weeks of my own time making sure in December ordering and disseminating Gaudreau t-shirts.

We more or less try to tell it like it is, as much as possible, from each of our own perspectives here. Once the team gets better the news will get better. That's really all I can tell you.

Avatar
#13 Justin Azevedo
May 09 2013, 10:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@danglesnipecelly

draft picks are like roulette. higher the pick, smaller the chance of losing your money. but every pick is different - would you rather bet $40 dollars on 3 spins with a 50.7% total chance of getting a player who will produce at .5ppg over 200 gp in the nhl or would you rather bet $20 on one spin with a 76% chance of getting that player?

the facts are these: if you can use a pick worth about 2/10 with a pick worth about 5/10 to get a pick worth 8/10, you're still ahead no matter how many less darts you throw.

Avatar
#14 Justin Azevedo
May 09 2013, 10:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Derzie

drouin might have the most talent, but mackinnon and jones are more likely to be impact players and more likely to reach their ceiling. barkov too probably.

the issue is that wing is the least important position on the ice and the easiest to obtain in fa.

Avatar
#15 ned
May 09 2013, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
danglesnipecelly wrote:

So we should trade TWO first round picks and a roster player to move up a few spots? Garbage. If draft picks are lottery tickets as everyone on here seems to like to say or darts thrown at a board then why not have three tix? Three darts to throw? I get what you're saying about the elite top four or five but still...

FN is tough to read sometimes. The negativity wears me out. I know it's been a tough go the last several years but I think most fans are desperate to have something positive to hope for... like the draft. FN is sometimes like watching the evening news and that's not a favourable comparison. I stopped watching the news a long time ago...

Yeah, sure Flames fans want some positives but as the past years have shown it's kinda hard to be hopeful when obvious incompetence seems to permeate this franchise. Flames fans want to have confidence in the org but really how can we?

So as much as I would like to be 'positive' about the prospect of our 6th pick, I'd be much more excited and supportive of trading up a few spot to mitigate the incompetence of this franchise's scouting and brass. I'll save my 'hope' for the prospect that ownership will one day realize that Edwards, King, Feaster and co. are obstacles to the franchises sustained success.

If you're looking for blind cheerleading maybe consider becoming a Canucks fan - should be plenty of seats on that train wreck.

Keep up the good work FN.

Avatar
#16 Jai Kiran
May 09 2013, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't believe our 1st, a roster player (even Glencross or Gio) and St. Louis's 1st gets us into the top 4. I think if you add Johnny G to that package, interest begins to stir.

I wouldn't do it, but Jay Feaster might.

Avatar
#17 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 10:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Emir wrote:

Just finished ready pronmans top 10 draft. Interesting enough he called the top six "all star" taken and then 7-10 "top talent." he had barkov at 5 and lindholm at 6. So interesting to see if indeed is like that and does it play out that way.

no matter where the "all star" talents stop, I'm worried of another crazy left field type move. Won't know until the day and until its done!

I just read it as well. The more I read about Lindholm the more I like him. Picking at #6, according to Pronman, we have a great shot at picking a top player. Assuming Mac and Jones are gone, my hope is still for Barkov to fall to us. I wouldn't, however, be the least bit upset of we ended up with Lindholm.

I maintain that I would rather trade the bottom 2 picks for a 2nd in the top 10 or 12 instead of trying to move into the top 4; I just think the cost would be too great. Unlike Derzie, I would hope to grab Ristolainen with that pick or maybe even Monahan if he drops as well. If we could shore up the C position with one draft, hell, one round, that would help move things quicker. That said, grabbing a high end D is something we should really start developing.

I'm also really, really, really hoping that Feaster and co. are very aggressive at this draft, utilizing their remaining vets and available cap space to acquire young talent and more (1st's hopefully) picks.

Load up on prospects at this draft and then move onto the FA market. The smart thing would be to acquire over-priced vets that hav a year left on the contract. Gain and extra asset with that vet and plan to get another at the deadline. 1 full calander year of rebuild mode/restocking prospect cupboards with 2 drafts and then move on to challenging for the PO again.

Avatar
#18 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

And we have a loooooooooooooot of wingers. Mostly LW.

Avatar
#19 seve927
May 09 2013, 10:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Unfortunately, when your team is mediocre or bad, the news and analysis is generally bad as well. It's inescapable.

That said, FN is not merely the domain of the pessimist. We were the only ones defending Mikael Backlund last year when he was beleaguered. We projected TJ Brodie as a high-end prospect more or less before anyone else. We have profiled guys like John Gaudreau and Sven Baertschi in detail and at length because they are exciting players. Hell, I spent weeks of my own time making sure in December ordering and disseminating Gaudreau t-shirts.

We more or less try to tell it like it is, as much as possible, from each of our own perspectives here. Once the team gets better the news will get better. That's really all I can tell you.

Just Lambert. Somebody needs to get that fish Gustafson threw in the back of his station wagon the hell out of there. All he does is complain about stuff that makes no sense. Kiprusoff's ghastly PK save percentage after 5 games! Iginla's production explodes after getting some decent linemates!

I'd rather listen to my wife when I get home at 4am.

Avatar
#20 piscera.infada
May 09 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

I'm sorry. While I can appreciate the whole "centres are more valuable in the long run than wingers" (at least in terms of team make-up and trade value), I take issue with the thought that choosing Drouin would be a mistake.

The kid is a game changer, with a ridiculous ceiling. If you can actually tell me you wouldn't want him on this team moving forward, you're lying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the Barkov bandwagon, and would love the guy to be the centre of the future for the Flames. However, if we were picking 2nd overall and took Drouin, I would be entirely behind that.

Avatar
#21 Scary Gary
May 09 2013, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jai Kiran wrote:

I don't believe our 1st, a roster player (even Glencross or Gio) and St. Louis's 1st gets us into the top 4. I think if you add Johnny G to that package, interest begins to stir.

I wouldn't do it, but Jay Feaster might.

IMO that seems like an overpay.

If we can move up by trading our first pick and one of our other first rounders with a roster player for a lower first and a late second we do it. Hard to say what the market is though.

Also regarding Fleury, no thanks! I've never been a big fan of his. I knew once they picked up Vokoun that he would be starting at some point during these playoffs.

Avatar
#22 Danglesnipecelly
May 09 2013, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

That's fair. I don't want to sound unappreciative. I read damn near every word posted here and I understand that the team is not good and has not been for a while.

I guess my issue is with the negative draft talk... The 2013 draft has not happened yet so to expect the worst and start complaining already is unnecessary IMO. Can't the glass be half full sometimes?

Avatar
#23 Danger
May 09 2013, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Derzie

Not to pile on, but I would have some serious concerns about Drouin's numbers possibly being inflated by a high shooting percentage this year. IIRC, Pronman's article on the top 5 noted that he scored a lot of goals without taking all that many shots, and one of the commenters on a previous thread here had worked out Drouin's shooting percentage to be like 25% or something, which seems unsustainably high.

For these reasons, I'd have serious reservations about picking Drouin even if he was still available at 6. Of course, I've never seen any of these kids actually play, so I'm relying on (admittedly half-remembered) things I've read about them. It's just that there seem to be some red flags even in Pronman's write-up, and he put Drouin at #1.

Avatar
#24 Parallex
May 09 2013, 11:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I have a feeling that the Flames will be taking Monahan. Presuming Barkov is off the board, I'd prefer Lindholm but unless Nichushkin goes at #4 or #5 (and I don't think the Flames would take him at #6) then I don't think he'll be available (and truth be told I don't have any feeling of certainty that the Flames would value him over Monahan).

Avatar
#25 piscera.infada
May 09 2013, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Danger

After watching some Drouin footage; it's not his shot and ability to score that is his best asset. It's his ability to create time and space with his creativity and puck control. I see him as more of a play maker that can also put the puck in the net.

Just seems like the kind of guy you want to watch play for you, not against you.

Avatar
#26 dotfras
May 09 2013, 11:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think there's a difference between being negative & being cautious.

Based on history, we have reason to doubt the choices that management and ownership make.

Unless we can move up without sacrificing the farm, I hope we maintain our #6 pick. One of Barkov, Nichushkin, or Lindholm (in that order) will suffice.

With our other 2 picks is where I think Feast can get creative....

What if we can use each of those picks, roster players & cap space to move BOTH of those picks up in separate deals?

Now that would be awesome.

Avatar
#27 Danger
May 09 2013, 11:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Lambert

Re: 5. Somehow this picture just makes me feel really sad now. Looking at it has become like looking into a mirror that reveals an emptiness deep inside my soul.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad the team finally moved on (only 2-3 years too late), despite the fact that they only got a handful of magic beans in return. Even if the beans aren't really magic, you can still plant them and get more beans.

It's just interesting how a picture which used to lift my spirits now brings them crashing down instead.

Avatar
#28 Danger
May 09 2013, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
piscera.infada wrote:

After watching some Drouin footage; it's not his shot and ability to score that is his best asset. It's his ability to create time and space with his creativity and puck control. I see him as more of a play maker that can also put the puck in the net.

Just seems like the kind of guy you want to watch play for you, not against you.

Ah, fair enough. I guess because he's a winger and had a lot of goals, I just assumed that was the main selling point, which would be a big issue if it was inflated by a high SH%. If he's more of a playmaker, then the SH% becomes less of an issue.

Avatar
#29 Kent Wilson
May 09 2013, 11:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Danglesnipecelly

Well that's Ryan and he gives his reasons why. There is a portion of the fanbase that agrees with him I'm sure.

Personally I'm excited about the draft and its possibilities, even if the Flames don't have the best record. I really wish they hadn't settled at 6, but there will definitely be several excellent players available there even if they can't move up.

Avatar
#30 Colin.S
May 09 2013, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If Barkov or Lindholm are at 6, it's a no brainer, either one of those fits the Flames needs.

As for trading up, we might get into the 4th or 5th spot, but I REALLY doubt we can put together any sort of package that gets us McKinnon, Drouin or Jones.

Avatar
#31 Baalzamon
May 09 2013, 11:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Lindholm!!!

Avatar
#32 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Danglesnipecelly wrote:

That's fair. I don't want to sound unappreciative. I read damn near every word posted here and I understand that the team is not good and has not been for a while.

I guess my issue is with the negative draft talk... The 2013 draft has not happened yet so to expect the worst and start complaining already is unnecessary IMO. Can't the glass be half full sometimes?

Feel free to add your own positive perspective of the upcoming or even past drafts.

Avatar
#33 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Austin

The best we can do is 25th with the PIT pick and, I believe, 20th with STL pick. It would require that no divisional winners make the final 4 I'm pretty sure.

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

I really agree with #5

Avatar
#35 beloch
May 09 2013, 12:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Some thoughts on trading up:

1. How often do #1 (or even #2) picks get traded? Let's face it, Florida and Colorado are going to want a *lot* to move down to #6. Think about what you'd want to do to Feaster if he traded down from #1 or #2 to #6 in this draft!

2. All the teams picking ahead of the Flames are, surprise, a lot younger. They are highly unlikely to be even remotely interested in Calgary's veterans because they simply won't be productive long enough to matter on a team that's years away from peak.

3. Even if they wanted expensive veterans, none of the teams ahead of Calgary really have cap-space to burn. Tampa Bay is particularly squeezed, but the other teams all have a lot of players to replace/resign with limited funds.

The way I read the situation is that the Flames are going to have to give up young impact players like Backlund/Brodie or top prospects to move up in the draft. Cammalleri, Tanguay and two firsts for the #1-#3 overall pick is simply not going to happen.

Depending on who Carolina and Nashville really want to draft, the Flames might be able to move up a spot or two, but it's still probably going to be prohibitively expensive.

So moving up is hard. Is it worth it? From looking at the prospect rankings, I don't think the difference between #6 and #4 is that huge. In any of these positions the Flames could get a good center or defender. Moving up to the top 3 is going to be prohibitively expensive. If Feaster can work out a deal to move up that isn't a total disaster I'd be amazed.

Avatar
#36 Justin Azevedo
May 09 2013, 12:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@piscera.infada

oh absolutely. I just put him at 4 on my list.

Avatar
#37 Kevin R
May 09 2013, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think that #6 is going to be just fine & we are going to get a player that is going to give us hope, excitement & buzz just like Svens incredible last year in Portland has or Johhny G's world championships has.

The only way we trade the #6 is if the player we wanted isn't there but the player that is available is totally coveted by someone else. & it would have to be a sweet overpayment to boot. So if we are like that for #6, can you imagine trying to pry a #3 or #4 will be like? We cant afford that kind of overpayment. Our best assets are what T&A is saying. We have later 1st's which become even more valuable as players start to fall & we have cap space & we have some well priced veterans to try & score a top 12 pick. So combine a #6 with another top 12 pick will be huge for our rebuild.

Can anyone clarify our Pitt & Stl picks: Lets hypothetically say, Chi win, LA win, Ana win, Rangers win, Ott win, Bos win & NYI win (:-} Can I assume the following:

1 thru 14 is set. Van/Pitt/Mont/Wash/ all are divisional winners eliminated in 1st round. So, Minny, Toronto,Detroit all pick before STL, therefore our St Louis pick will be 18th overall? If so, not bad. Then, Pitt being the best record of the divisional winners would be 22nd? Right? Wrong?

Avatar
#38 piscera.infada
May 09 2013, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@beloch

I agree with this. However, could there be a scenario wherein Tampa gives us their 3rd overall for our sixth overall, and cap relief?

Again, I'm not opposed to staying at 6th, I'd be happy with Barkov, Lindholm, or Monahan. It might be something to think about though.

Avatar
#39 seve927
May 09 2013, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

I think that #6 is going to be just fine & we are going to get a player that is going to give us hope, excitement & buzz just like Svens incredible last year in Portland has or Johhny G's world championships has.

The only way we trade the #6 is if the player we wanted isn't there but the player that is available is totally coveted by someone else. & it would have to be a sweet overpayment to boot. So if we are like that for #6, can you imagine trying to pry a #3 or #4 will be like? We cant afford that kind of overpayment. Our best assets are what T&A is saying. We have later 1st's which become even more valuable as players start to fall & we have cap space & we have some well priced veterans to try & score a top 12 pick. So combine a #6 with another top 12 pick will be huge for our rebuild.

Can anyone clarify our Pitt & Stl picks: Lets hypothetically say, Chi win, LA win, Ana win, Rangers win, Ott win, Bos win & NYI win (:-} Can I assume the following:

1 thru 14 is set. Van/Pitt/Mont/Wash/ all are divisional winners eliminated in 1st round. So, Minny, Toronto,Detroit all pick before STL, therefore our St Louis pick will be 18th overall? If so, not bad. Then, Pitt being the best record of the divisional winners would be 22nd? Right? Wrong?

Unless something's changed this year, we've got to wait for the second round losers to move ahead of us as well.

Avatar
#40 Ed Wailin'
May 09 2013, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I often wonder what has been the crux of Calgary's terrible draft record over the years?

1) The fact that the scouting group is incompetent...

2) The fact that the management/ownership group interferes and tries to fill a need, instead of taking the "best player available"...

or

3) Simply bad luck.

I tend lean towards a combination of all of the above. That said, how do you go about fixing the problem?

Do you make the scouting group autonomous from the management group? It seems that's the case in Detroit to a certain extent. Do we need to separate "Church from State" so to speak?

Because it certainly seems like they have given Todd Button a more than fair shake at the stick, and his track record speak for itself. Therefore I tend to believe they justify having him around by blaming it on our revolving door of coaches and their varying opinions on direction. Either way, somethings gotta give... and I certainly hope they bring in some process engineers over the summer to try and sort this steaming pile of you know what. No more meddling. PLEASE. "Intellectual Honest(l)y"

Avatar
#41 Justin Azevedo
May 09 2013, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

question:

lecavalier and barkov for monahan: do you do that trade?

Avatar
#42 seve927
May 09 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

question:

lecavalier and barkov for monahan: do you do that trade?

That's been on my mind for a while, which led into various extensions to try to keep Monahan(or Lindholm) as well.

But yes, I certainly do that. It's not my money. Lecavalier could be bought out (right?) and it costs us fans nothing! Or he was also a pretty good player last year, highest ES scoring rate of his career (IIRC), and decent possession for that team.

I think Tampa would jump at that deal. They still get a player that fits perfectly for their team, plus a ton of cap flexibility to actually try to win something when Stamkos is in his prime and St. Louis is still functional.

Avatar
#43 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 12:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

question:

lecavalier and barkov for monahan: do you do that trade?

Uhg!!! Likely no. Lecavalier and Barkov for #25-#30 pick, probably........UHG!!!

Avatar
#44 Kent Wilson
May 09 2013, 01:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ed Wailin'

Me too. I'd really like to know how much luck there is in drafting and developing players. I mean, there's a ton of prospects every year and only a small fraction ever make the show. Outside of the top-10/15 talents which everyone knows about, it really looks like a fairly random draw.

Avatar
#45 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ed Wailin'

It seems like the drafting has been better since Feaster took over. As far as I know, he has increased his scouting department and maybe even more importantly, he has created a better development system by trying to make the AHL club more competitive.

Of course, we still haven't seen a full time player hit the big club yet for Feaster's drafts. So, we are still in 'wait and see' mode.

Avatar
#46 Kevin R
May 09 2013, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Uhg!!! Likely no. Lecavalier and Barkov for #25-#30 pick, probably........UHG!!!

I agree. There is 45 million left on Lecalviers contract & 7.7mill cap hit until 2020. I don't even know if I would do the Stl pick for their Barkov & Vinny. But I would consider seeing if they would part with that #4 pick & Ohlund, who is a 5.0 mill cap hit for 3 more years but only 6.5 mill owing on that contract. Would a Whotherspoon & the Stl & Pitt picks be enough for the 4th & salary dump. To have the 4th & 6th would be nothing short of badly needed & amazing.

Avatar
#47 piscera.infada
May 09 2013, 01:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@T&A4Flames

I tend to agree with the making Abby more competitive. I mean, they aren't great, but the team is there to drive development. When Feaster was named GM he said one of his goals was to make The Heat a more competitive team, and that was met with scoffs and eye rolls (not unlike Elisha Cuthbert last night). But I think very few people underestimate the value in doing that.

Sure, he's picked up some guys off waivers and free agency that aren't challenging the top three lines for the Flames, but as long as prospects feel they have to earn their spot on the Abby roster in order to prove they belong in the show, that's a positive.

I firmly believe it hasn't been as much about our drafting as it has been about our development. I think this is (at least marginally) backed up by the large number of under performing prospects we've had the last several years, and the fact that at one point this season the only Flames draft picks playing for the team were Begin, Backlund, and Brodie.

Avatar
#48 seve927
May 09 2013, 01:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

I agree. There is 45 million left on Lecalviers contract & 7.7mill cap hit until 2020. I don't even know if I would do the Stl pick for their Barkov & Vinny. But I would consider seeing if they would part with that #4 pick & Ohlund, who is a 5.0 mill cap hit for 3 more years but only 6.5 mill owing on that contract. Would a Whotherspoon & the Stl & Pitt picks be enough for the 4th & salary dump. To have the 4th & 6th would be nothing short of badly needed & amazing.

So we couldn't buy out Vinny?

Avatar
#49 Parallex
May 09 2013, 01:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

It seems like the drafting has been better since Feaster took over. As far as I know, he has increased his scouting department and maybe even more importantly, he has created a better development system by trying to make the AHL club more competitive.

Of course, we still haven't seen a full time player hit the big club yet for Feaster's drafts. So, we are still in 'wait and see' mode.

If he was trying to make the AHL club more competitive he didn't do a good job. Worse from what I understand Ward tends to give more ice-time/starts to the AHL vets then he does to the prospects... IMO the AHL is a developmental league and thus development should be the paramount concern not "competativeness" (which should come naturally through development).

I think Ward should be replaced TBQH. He doesn't coach the way Hartley coaches and I'm more of the belief that the AHL coach should be as much a mirror of the NHL coach as possible so that call-ups are more easily able to slide into the line-up.

Avatar
#50 SmellOfVictory
May 09 2013, 01:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
danglesnipecelly wrote:

So we should trade TWO first round picks and a roster player to move up a few spots? Garbage. If draft picks are lottery tickets as everyone on here seems to like to say or darts thrown at a board then why not have three tix? Three darts to throw? I get what you're saying about the elite top four or five but still...

FN is tough to read sometimes. The negativity wears me out. I know it's been a tough go the last several years but I think most fans are desperate to have something positive to hope for... like the draft. FN is sometimes like watching the evening news and that's not a favourable comparison. I stopped watching the news a long time ago...

It's gotten worse. It was initially more of a relatively unbiased evaluation of the Flames and what was going on/what should be done, etc. Unfortunately, I think due to the fact that the (relatively) unbiased evaluation of the team was unfavourable in and of itself, a lot of the commenters developed a pessimistic view of the franchise as a whole.

Also, Ryan Lambert has always been a bit of a Debbie Downer (good writer - just saying); it's just that there happen to be dozens of people who have gone all emo on us, now.

Comments are closed for this article.