Potential Draft Trade Target - The Florida Panthers

Kent Wilson
June 14 2013 09:31AM

Florida Panthers Mascot Stanley C. Panther

- pic via Reto Kurmann

Jay Feaster and Craig Conroy have been vocal in the media about the Flames wishes of moving up from the 6th spot in this years draft. Of course, almost every team not in the top-5 currently is likely saying the same thing given the density and quality of the talent that resides at the top end.

Calgary may be uniquely positioned to make this sort of move, though, assuming they can find a willing trade partner. With three other first rounders, including 6th overall, plus more than a few veteran bodies they'd be willing to move, Calgary might be able to make a move down palatable to one of Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville or Carolina.

From my perspective, the best target might be Florida. The Panthers have been "rebuilding" (again) since Dale Tallon took the reins and have garnered 10 picks in the first two rounds over the last three entry drafts, including guys like Eric Gudbranson, Jonathan Huberdeau, Nick Bjugstad and Quinton Howden. Last season, no less than nine guys 22 years old or younger suited up for the Panthers over the course of the 48 game regular season.

Which isn't to say they couldn't use yet another young talent in the Nate MacKinnon/Jonathan Drouin mould - only that Florida is at a different point of their rebuild cycle than Calgary and likely have slightly different priorities, ie; becoming competitive sooner rather than later. In addition, the Panthers are poised to lose long-time first line center Stephen Weiss to unrestricted free agency and there isn't a lot available via the UFA pool to help them compensate for that sort of loss.

So, in sum: the Panthers have a lot of upcoming youngsters, have a need to get better sooner rather than later, could use more than one established, veteran body and will be needing at least one top-six forward to assuage the loss of Weiss.

The Flames, in response, could offer them the 6th overall pick (dropping FLA down only 4 places), a player like Cammalleri or Tanguay to fold into the top of the rotation and probably another pick later in the draft (be it 22 or 28). With 2nd overall, the Flames could pick Nate MacKinnon (assuming COL takes Seth Jones) who projects to be an elite talent, which is what the Calgary organization desperately needs above all else.

Of course, this is all completely speculative and we can't know just how interested or wiling the Panthers would be in such a move. Still, from a 50,000 foot level it seems like the building blocks of a potential deal are there.

Other Stuff

- Shero is nuts if he doesn't buy-out or trade MA Fleury this summer. We can't necessarily take his recent very public defense of the Pens (former?) starter as an iron clad indication he won't be moving him out, but that's how it sounds right now. The justification that rippled across twitter at the time of the press conference was (paraphrased) "we can't replace Fleury's 40 wins a season".

Which is ridiculous, because of course you can. Easily, given the collection of skaters the Penguins boast. Vokoun is signed through next season and I'm completely certain he'd win as many - or more - games as Fleury over the same amount of starts. The kid has been mediocre for pretty much his entire NHL career and his reputation as a quality goalies has been built on his draft pedigree and the strength of his club almost exclusively.

What's more, Pittsburgh has some very urgent cap issues they need resolve over the next 12 months owing to Evgeni Malkin and Kris Letang needing fat new contracts. Paying over $5M for an eminently replaceable puckstopper in those circumstances is bonkers.

And, no, the Flames shouldn't inquire about Fleury should he become available this summer.

- John Davidson was on the FAN960 this morning and noted he never had talks with the Flames about potentially joining the organization after he left the Blues. Make of that what you will.

- I was notified recently that Schanks is hosting a Sports Trivia Summer Showdown on June 25th in support of Kids Up Front Calgary, a charity that "provides children and teens with experiences that foster possibilities, passions and dreams … one ticket a time." The entry fee is only $60 for a team of four and the prize for the first overall team is $500 cash and $400 in Schanks gift cards.

So if you want to show off your sports trivia, win some money and support a good local charity, make sure to check it out. If you want more details, email summershowdown2013@gmail.com.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 Gmac84
June 14 2013, 07:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Clyde wrote:

Wait a minute everyone. Mackinnon is very good and had a tremendous memorial cup. But lets not get too carried away. At the world junior he was outperformed by all the other top 7 guys on the draft board who were at the same tourney

Small sample size. By that logic you can make the argument that he crushed many of those same players in the mem cup. He just seems like a sure fire elite talent and we don't have any of those guys. Sven may get there and I hope he does, but right now I'd bet on Nathan.

Avatar
#52 clyde
June 14 2013, 07:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Gmac84 wrote:

Small sample size. By that logic you can make the argument that he crushed many of those same players in the mem cup. He just seems like a sure fire elite talent and we don't have any of those guys. Sven may get there and I hope he does, but right now I'd bet on Nathan.

Lindholme, Barkov, Nichuskin were not in the Memorial Cup and therefore were not crushed. They were much better at the WJ than Mackinnon. Drouin and Jones crushed him at the WJ. He outplayed Jones at the Memorial Cup but Drouin was not terribly far behind after crushing him at the WJ and out playing him all year. I'm not saying he isn't good but I think the excellent Memorial Cup is inflating his value.

Avatar
#53 RKD
June 14 2013, 07:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I hope Tallon would trade us the 2nd pick, a guy like MacKinnon is from the same place as Crosby and has taken the same path as Sid. Nate is a gamechanger, he could be the next franchise player for the Flames. Not keeping guys like Cammy or Tangs around doesn't hurt us, they aren't getting better or younger.

Avatar
#54 Gmac84
June 14 2013, 07:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@clyde

Right. I think we're making the same point from opposite sides here. For the same reason you can't deify him for his mem cup run you can't disparage him for the WJC. I just happen to as him as being more valuable than anything the flames have right now.

Avatar
#55 Gmac84
June 14 2013, 07:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would love to aquire Mackinnon, if at all possible, without giving up one of those 3 guys, but you just cant trade spare parts for elite talent unless you're trading with the Flames, and we're the only team in the league without that opportunity.

It's a risk I wouldn't mind seeing them take, but I'd also love to just see them make solid picks with the ones they have.

Avatar
#56 clyde
June 14 2013, 08:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Gmac84 wrote:

Right. I think we're making the same point from opposite sides here. For the same reason you can't deify him for his mem cup run you can't disparage him for the WJC. I just happen to as him as being more valuable than anything the flames have right now.

I would love to have him over any on our current roster too but not at the expense of the 6th. It would not be surprising if a guy like Lindholme ( I really like his game) turns out to be better than Mackinnon.

Avatar
#57 T&A4Flames
June 14 2013, 09:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Unbelievable what people want to give up to move up 4 spots. Mac would be great but seriously, these suggestions are setting us back further. I'm not sure I call Mac a "generational" talent. However, trading all 3 picks, Sven + anything and everything else, will likely land us a the next generational player in 2 years; Connor McDavid.

Seriously people, we don't have to do it all this in this 1 draft. We have assets to move, Cammi, Tanguay, Gio and GlenX if necessary, cap space 1 or 2 of the 1st and some decent future 3rd line prospects. 1, 2 or maybe 3 of those assets can be used to move up but all is ridiculous. Stop and breath for a second and don't get caught up in the excitement. Lindholm and Monahan are solid prospects as well. In fact, if PHI, came calling and offered Couturier and the 11th and their 2nd (assuming they have it) for the 6th, I may do that. Lindholm and Monahan may be better, they may be worse than Couts in the future, but Couts is a proven NHL'r and we still get a high 1st and 2nd. The only way I think I don't do that is if Barkov (or Mac etc) a still on the board.

Next year we likely suck again and get another high pick. Maybe that is the "MacKinnon" player we all want.

Avatar
#58 Austin
June 14 2013, 09:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Unbelievable what people want to give up to move up 4 spots. Mac would be great but seriously, these suggestions are setting us back further. I'm not sure I call Mac a "generational" talent. However, trading all 3 picks, Sven + anything and everything else, will likely land us a the next generational player in 2 years; Connor McDavid.

Seriously people, we don't have to do it all this in this 1 draft. We have assets to move, Cammi, Tanguay, Gio and GlenX if necessary, cap space 1 or 2 of the 1st and some decent future 3rd line prospects. 1, 2 or maybe 3 of those assets can be used to move up but all is ridiculous. Stop and breath for a second and don't get caught up in the excitement. Lindholm and Monahan are solid prospects as well. In fact, if PHI, came calling and offered Couturier and the 11th and their 2nd (assuming they have it) for the 6th, I may do that. Lindholm and Monahan may be better, they may be worse than Couts in the future, but Couts is a proven NHL'r and we still get a high 1st and 2nd. The only way I think I don't do that is if Barkov (or Mac etc) a still on the board.

Next year we likely suck again and get another high pick. Maybe that is the "MacKinnon" player we all want.

I would go for that deal. Next year's draft I see us being in the 4-6 range and its already looking like a weaker draft. There is nothing absurd about giving Tangiay Cammy and two firsts for #2. We aren't resigning Cammy at the end of this season. Tanguay is going to be useless without Iginla here. There's a pretty sizeable gap between 2 and 6 in my opinion. As Lindholm projects to being a solid top 6 to average first liner. Monahan projects as a great two way top 6. And now we don't have to deal with the risk/reward of having Nichuskin fall to us at 6.

I think it's more likely we get Nashville or Carolina's pick however.

Avatar
#59 Kevin R
June 14 2013, 10:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Unbelievable what people want to give up to move up 4 spots. Mac would be great but seriously, these suggestions are setting us back further. I'm not sure I call Mac a "generational" talent. However, trading all 3 picks, Sven + anything and everything else, will likely land us a the next generational player in 2 years; Connor McDavid.

Seriously people, we don't have to do it all this in this 1 draft. We have assets to move, Cammi, Tanguay, Gio and GlenX if necessary, cap space 1 or 2 of the 1st and some decent future 3rd line prospects. 1, 2 or maybe 3 of those assets can be used to move up but all is ridiculous. Stop and breath for a second and don't get caught up in the excitement. Lindholm and Monahan are solid prospects as well. In fact, if PHI, came calling and offered Couturier and the 11th and their 2nd (assuming they have it) for the 6th, I may do that. Lindholm and Monahan may be better, they may be worse than Couts in the future, but Couts is a proven NHL'r and we still get a high 1st and 2nd. The only way I think I don't do that is if Barkov (or Mac etc) a still on the board.

Next year we likely suck again and get another high pick. Maybe that is the "MacKinnon" player we all want.

Amen. If these guys are generational guaranteed superstars, why would any of the top 3 or 4 give up these kind of potential talents. It just isn't going to happen. We go after the picks we might have some assets we could part with in the name of "rebuild" like the 5th, 8th, 9th 10th or 11th. Go after some mid round picks like the Islanders or some of Columbus's picks. Add don't subtract. This draft has over a round of players that could go 10-15 in other drafts, what a beautiful opportunity to put us back on the map with some decent depth in our prospects. What an exciting time we can have in 2 years, rather than go all in on one player.

Avatar
#60 T&A4Flames
June 14 2013, 10:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Austin

Ok, Cammi, Tanguay and the 2 later picks may be as far as I go to get the 2nd. My main point was that adding Sven etc to that as well as the 6th over all is way way way overkill. Tangs and Cammi I am certainly willing to move because, yea, they don't at all factor in to our future. I'm just saying it wouldn't be wise to trade all our assets for 4 spots on the draft board.

Avatar
#61 Gmac84
June 14 2013, 11:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I agree with the general sentiments here in that I certainly wouldn't advocate trading several of our few prized assets to move up, but I also wouldn't consider anyone untouchable when it comes to acquiring the kind of talent that supposedly is available at the top of this draft.

I'll be very excited about this draft regardless but moreso if we can move up.

Avatar
#62 Kurt
June 15 2013, 12:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Unbelievable what people want to give up to move up 4 spots. Mac would be great but seriously, these suggestions are setting us back further. I'm not sure I call Mac a "generational" talent. However, trading all 3 picks, Sven + anything and everything else, will likely land us a the next generational player in 2 years; Connor McDavid.

Seriously people, we don't have to do it all this in this 1 draft. We have assets to move, Cammi, Tanguay, Gio and GlenX if necessary, cap space 1 or 2 of the 1st and some decent future 3rd line prospects. 1, 2 or maybe 3 of those assets can be used to move up but all is ridiculous. Stop and breath for a second and don't get caught up in the excitement. Lindholm and Monahan are solid prospects as well. In fact, if PHI, came calling and offered Couturier and the 11th and their 2nd (assuming they have it) for the 6th, I may do that. Lindholm and Monahan may be better, they may be worse than Couts in the future, but Couts is a proven NHL'r and we still get a high 1st and 2nd. The only way I think I don't do that is if Barkov (or Mac etc) a still on the board.

Next year we likely suck again and get another high pick. Maybe that is the "MacKinnon" player we all want.

Completely agree!! I think the key is your last sentence... We will suck again next year, no rush. Lets do this right and not try to fix 10 years of mess in 1 year. As long as Feaster doesn't try to rush back to 9th place I'm good.

Avatar
#63 Double Dion
June 15 2013, 10:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Tavares was drafted 4 years before MacKinnon, but he's 5 years older. Tavares was one of the older players in the 2009 draft (late September birthday) while MacKinnon is one of the youngest in the 2013 draft (mid-September birthday). When you're comparing MacKinnon's draft year to one of Tavares's, you should be looking at the year before Tavares's draft year.

And Tavares may not have had Drouin (or Frk) as teammates, but he did have Cal Clutterbuck, Michael Del Zotto, and Brett MacLean (who was a big scorer in junior and the AHL, but for whatever reason hadn't been able to translate his offence to the NHL before retiring due to a heart condition).

Not as clear-cut as you might think (though Tavares is certainly a lofty standard). One thing is, though, MacKinnon is an elite skater, whereas it's arguably a stretch to call Tavares average.

I don't know what point you're making? Tavares is 9 months older at the same point in his draft year and outscored Mackinnon at 15 years of age. So to say Mackinnon is a "once a decade" talent is completely off. He's a player who would be a top pick in a lot of drafts. What separates this draft is that there are at least 3, perhaps 5 players who are of that caliber. Not the top end. Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Tavares were all clearly better at the same age.

Avatar
#64 Baalzamon
June 15 2013, 11:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Double Dion

First of all, MacKinnon and Tavares's birthdays are in the same months. So it's not "9 months at the same point" it's more like 11 months. Thus, his draft year should be compared to MacKinnon's next season. MacKinnon's draft season should be compared to Tavare's pre-draft-eligible season (the one where he scored 134 points in 67 games)

Second, it isn't at all accurate to say Tavares outscored MacKinnon in his 15 year old season, because Tavares played 21 more games and had 2 more points.

My point, such as it is, is that your opinion is based on mostly incorrect (or at least incomplete) information. It isn't necessarily wrong (hence my "Tavares is a lofty standard" remark).

But here's another point: Points aren't everything. Daymond Langkow was a HUGE scorer in junior. Jarome Iginla didn't even get a point per game in his draft year.

Avatar
#65 Franko J
June 15 2013, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin wrote:

Looking at some of these comments, I can't help but contemplate why everybody thinks a top-3 pick is the only way to build a contender.

Boston and Detroit are examples of recent clubs that have won and never picked top-5 (Horton was acquired through a trade). Los Angeles is another example of good drafting and shrewd trades leading to the Cup. Outside of Doughty, all of their elite players were either drafted well outside of the top-five or picked up via trades or FA signings.

St.Louis is another contender that will continually challenge for the next few years, and although they did pick first overall once, Johnson did not turn out to be a star and was traded. Their entire roster is also a combination of good drafting in the mid-to-late first round (and later), as well as adriot trades.

Hence, good scouting, trades, and FA signings in combination are what lead to contender status, not just picking top-five. Hell, the aforementioned teams illustrate top-five picks are not a prerequisite to being a good team.

Thus, rather than selling the farm to get in the top-3 , I would rather the Flames just draft the BPA with their three firsts. They are not going to challenge for the next couple of years anyway, so good drafting in conjucton with shrewd trades and signings are what is needed, as the Flames are willing to spend to the Cap. It will, above all, take patience.

Finally, someone who is talking some sense at FN.

Great points to be made for sure.

I agree, I think next season will be another challenge for this team to make the playoffs. All depends on the goaltending. The Flames have many holes in the roster to fill. I think they should be actually trading players for more picks in the second round and down. This draft does have 4 or 5 players with elite talent, however, what makes it so "deep" is that there are a number of players who are exceptionally good with size to boot. I just think that there are going to be a high number of players in this draft playing in the NHL in the next 5 years. The more picks the Flames can acquire the better off they will be in the future. Besides if the Flames really want to trade picks and players wait to 2015.

Avatar
#66 MC Hockey
June 16 2013, 12:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

I am over it, but to hear all the posts and what people would be willing to give up for a small move in draft position... Like I said, make the picks and be thankful for what we get, cause it does look like we could end up with three pretty interesting prospects in round one alone. Can't wait.

Gotta disagree! To use 1980s terms, I would have traded anything to get Mario Lemieux in a draft instead of a really good forward like Mike Gartner or Ron Francis and a couple 2nd or 3rd liners

Avatar
#67 MC Hockey
June 16 2013, 12:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Who's the second "excellent pivot" on Chicago? My count stops at 1 (Toews).

Kane is a winger, Sharp is also a winger, Handzus is... not excellent, and Bolland is their 3rd liner (and had a terrible season).

Sharp plays some centre

Avatar
#68 Baalzamon
June 16 2013, 10:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
MC Hockey wrote:

Sharp plays some centre

So does Kane. So does Cammalleri. That doesn't change the fact that they're wingers.

Comments are closed for this article.