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
#1 Kurt
June 14 2013, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Kent - do you honestly believe this is possible? I mean its fun and all, and good chatter for the website. But if you truly look deep in your heart can you put yourself in the #2 spot, with Nate McKinnon jersey's in hand and then think it would be worth it to move down and get a good but non-elite player (6th) + a prospect to send back to junior or the AHL at best (22nd) and a guy who you called a buyout candidate a few days ago (Tanguay). Florida has a lot of good but not elite young players. McKinnon & Huberdeau would set them up for 10+ years.

I can't see it. If I was a Florida fan and they did it I'd be burning my jersey in the street.

I can't see any of the top 3 moving unless its Baertschi and 6th. Even then, I wouldn't do it if I was Florida...

I hope you are right though.

Avatar
#2 Rockmorton65
June 14 2013, 10:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I would almost be tempted to offer 6, 28, and any two roster players outside of the 3 b's (baertchi, backlund, Brodie).

Avatar
#3 FireOnIce
June 14 2013, 10:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Quite funny. I suggested a similar scenario a couple days ago (1st+Cammy+22nd/28th for FLA's #2 pick), and people lambasted me as an idiot for suggesting that. Now, here it is being suggested by someone more "credible".

I'm fer it.

My only fear is that if Calgary does trade up, and they don't go high enough, that Edmonton will sneak in and pull a trade to draft higher than CGY. And you know, take the player we want. Not that they need a top line center, but they'd do it just to screw us. Like signing Rekhabibulin.

If Davidson wasn't interviewed, and Yzerman wasn't interviewed, just another reason to dislike Flames management. Just hired Feaster and then had him deal with his cronies.

Avatar
#4 aloudoun
June 14 2013, 10:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I agree with Austin. I would give all that to get Mackinnon. An elite center is just what we need.

Avatar
#5 Clyde
June 14 2013, 01:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

This is a good point. Although Mack is definitely considered a cut above right now, Lindholm is well-regarded enough that it wouldn't be entirely surprising if he ended up as good as/better than the top-tier guys.

However, I'd still do #6 + vet for #2. Them dudes is expendable, for the most part.

That one I would do as well. Just not the massive overpayment.

Avatar
#6 BurningSensation
June 14 2013, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
SeanCharles wrote:

There is no way in heck Feaster trades Baertschi or Brodie plus to move up 4spots.

You dont trade an elite prospect (more so Sven) for an elite prospect even if the one you are trading for is potentially gonna be better.

Its a lateral move to trade Sven or TJ and the 6th to move up 4 spots.

In another draft year it might seem more realistic a proposal. But given the strength of this years top 6 it would be foolish to do so.

All top 6 ranked players have the potential to be stars, the top 3-4 are projected as elite level stars I know, but Sven has elite level skills..

You dont trade that for Mackinnon, no matter what, I'm sorry. I know we need centers but no way.

Brodie is our only young offensive dman with potential to play top pairing minutes so you dont do that either.

Most of you distrust Feaster already... I trust him and trust he would not be foolish enough to make such a lateral move...

If so then I would join the likes of the rest of you in the Feaster hate....

I have to disagree here. Even if Baertschi ends up being a top-end winger (a big if), it's still worth moving him for a franchise center.

When the opportunity comes to draft a franchise defining talent at center ice, you don't worry about the price.

And no, this isn't a lateral move either. Succesful teams (i.e. Bos, Chi, Pitt, LA, Det) all have two excellent pivots to build around.

Being deep at center is all but a pre-requisite for competing for the cup, whereas having a 40-40 winger is nice and all, but it doesn't bring home the hardware.

Avatar
#7 BurningSensation
June 14 2013, 02:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
clyde wrote:

And watch Lindholme become the better player. No thanks to that type of trade.

I'd rather take that risk than hope for the odds to split the other way (draft Lindholm, pray he becomes better than MacKinnon).

Avatar
#8 Gmac84
June 14 2013, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I have to agree with Burning Sensation here. There is not one player in our system i wouldn't package with picks to get Nathan Mckinnon. He seems as close to a generational player we've seen since Crosby, and the kind of player you can build around.

I love the killer B's, but removing sentiment from the situation and i think it's a no brainer.

Avatar
#9 Baalzamon
June 14 2013, 03:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Sean Bennett

"Boston and Detroit are examples of recent clubs that have won and never picked top-5"

Seguin was picked 2nd overall.

Avatar
#10 Austin
June 14 2013, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I feel like a team like Edmonton could put together a package. I would give Camalleri AND Tanguay, #6 and #28 all for #2. Mackinnon will be worth that much.

Avatar
#12 BurningSensation
June 14 2013, 10:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would move heaven and earth to get the #2 pick.

#6, #22, and our 1st from next year, + any roster player (including Beartschi, Brodie, and Backlund).

Yes, losing that many assets will hurt.

Yes, landing a franchise talent like MacKinnon would be worth it.

Avatar
#13 Mantastic
June 14 2013, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

if i'm florida and i can't resigned weiss, i would easily just draft mackinnon, production wise, it would be a wash. but if i were to trade the 2nd overall pick, i would require all of calgary's 1st and cammy at 1/2 cap.

if i'm calgary i would target 3rd or 4th, it would easier to pry the pick from tbl/nash with the 6th, 22nd and 28th picks.

Avatar
#14 Lordmork
June 14 2013, 10:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If the four elite players from this draft are the closest we're going to get to a "sure thing," then I'm all for trading up. I would rather the team use as many roster players as possible for such a trade, (Unless their name starts with B) over trading picks, but I'm sure this trade wouldn't get done without including at least one of our lower first round picks. I am just aware of the need to both acquire elite talent and re-stock our prospect system. No matter how elite, one player isn't going to fill all our team's needs, and while we have cap space, I'm not sure that's going to help us acquire the younger players we need.

Avatar
#15 danglesnipecelly
June 14 2013, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm all for trading #6, #28 and Cammy for any pick in the top four..... Also hearing a LOT more chatter about teams taking on bad contracts to improve draft position and/or prospect pool. The Leafs and their deep pockets seem to be kicking a lot of tires.

Mr. Edwards, the time to make your move is upon us. The Flames don't have a whole lot of advantages, this is one of them.

KILLS me that if we lose just one or two more games down the stretch we don't have to trade a thing for a top four pick. TWO MINUTES HATE - STEVE BEGIN!

Avatar
#17 Derzie
June 14 2013, 11:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If they do move up and any of the B's are involved, it had better be conditional on who goes number 1. The move should be about getting MacKinnon only. If he goes #1, the deal is off. No interest in a D Man in the top 10 and the cost for Druoin or Barkov would be too steep. On the other hand, if all we give up are non-B's, we won't get into the top 3 or 4. A stretch WITH the B's.

Avatar
#18 suba steve
June 14 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Seems to me that the appeal of the 2013 draft is the depth of talent, I could be reading it wrong, but that is my impression. As I have personally been following the draft since around 1990, I can tell you that a top 5 pick does not guarantee anything, even in a "strong" draft year like this one or 2003. The top 5 in 2003:

1 Fleury, 2 E Staal, 3 N Horton, 4 N Zherdev, 5 T Vanek. That list to me is a little underwhelming. A lot of the names called later in that first round sound a lot more impressive. Having said that, I would be way happier with the #2 pick then the #6 (if we had managed to lose 2 more games this season, but not by overpaying in a trade). That is one point.

Point 2. I do not share the confidence of many others that we KNOW the first 5 names that will be called. Every team has their own scouting dept. and individual needs, so we may be surprised at one or two names that the Flames get a chance to call at the #6 spot.

So I favor the shotgun approach, call 3 names in round one and cross your fingers that this scouting department has done their homework, and PRAY for luck.

Avatar
#19 SeanCharles
June 14 2013, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

There is no way in heck Feaster trades Baertschi or Brodie plus to move up 4spots.

You dont trade an elite prospect (more so Sven) for an elite prospect even if the one you are trading for is potentially gonna be better.

Its a lateral move to trade Sven or TJ and the 6th to move up 4 spots.

In another draft year it might seem more realistic a proposal. But given the strength of this years top 6 it would be foolish to do so.

All top 6 ranked players have the potential to be stars, the top 3-4 are projected as elite level stars I know, but Sven has elite level skills..

You dont trade that for Mackinnon, no matter what, I'm sorry. I know we need centers but no way.

Brodie is our only young offensive dman with potential to play top pairing minutes so you dont do that either.

Most of you distrust Feaster already... I trust him and trust he would not be foolish enough to make such a lateral move...

If so then I would join the likes of the rest of you in the Feaster hate....

Avatar
#20 cunning_linguist
June 14 2013, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
danglesnipecelly wrote:

I'm all for trading #6, #28 and Cammy for any pick in the top four..... Also hearing a LOT more chatter about teams taking on bad contracts to improve draft position and/or prospect pool. The Leafs and their deep pockets seem to be kicking a lot of tires.

Mr. Edwards, the time to make your move is upon us. The Flames don't have a whole lot of advantages, this is one of them.

KILLS me that if we lose just one or two more games down the stretch we don't have to trade a thing for a top four pick. TWO MINUTES HATE - STEVE BEGIN!

You took the words right out of my mouth. If we could have just lost 1 more game, we would have picked 4th. Two more games, we'd be picking 2nd. TWO GAMES and we'd have MacKinnon for free. Deep down I know that 10 years from now, we'll look back on yet another era of Calgary Flames mediocrity and lack of success thinking, if only we'd have lost TWO MORE GAMES in 12/13.

Calgary seems destined no pick no higher than 6th for ever and for all eternity. As such, this draft holds our best chance ever of moving up (3 firsts, 9 picks overall). I love Sven, I love Brodie but at the end of the day, players of their calliber and ability are replaceable (at a cost). MacKinnon is a talent you just don't find, the kind of guy to build a team around. When you're building a wall, you don't start with the mortar. You lay your brick and you fill in the cracks after. Let's go after a franchise player.

Avatar
#21 everton fc
June 14 2013, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Perhaps we move Cammy and Tanguay to get other picks in Round 1, which appears "deep", "on paper"?

Or... Move both for some defence, and a pick. Our defence looks poor, again "on paper".

If you trade with Tampa, you certainly can't move Tanguay! And would they take Cammy? I doubt it. I can't see any of the top 3 moving their picks. To "sure". I could see #4/#5 being potentially available.

Ideally, you'd keep the 6th... Trade up with roster players... and prospects... Then you have two in the first 6 picks.

One can dream....

Avatar
#22 SeanCharles
June 14 2013, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@cunning_linguist

How do you know Sven isn't a franchise player? or the player picked at 6 for that matter? Because Scouting agencies say so? They're right all the time eh?

Its better to have Sven, Brodie and Lindholm instead of just Mackinnon and one of them.

Langkow was drafted ahead of Iginla, Zherdev and Nilsson ahead of Parise, Getzlaf, Kesler, Perry, Richards...

There are endless cases, Kidd ahead of Brodeur..

The key is scouting, teams that have made alot of errors include NYI and CLB because their scouting has been piss poor.

Dont trade young players that have already established, albiet minor, themselves on the team and in the hearts of the fanbase when you dont have alot of elite young assests to begin with...

Avatar
#24 Jeff Lebowski
June 14 2013, 12:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kurt wrote:

Kent - do you honestly believe this is possible? I mean its fun and all, and good chatter for the website. But if you truly look deep in your heart can you put yourself in the #2 spot, with Nate McKinnon jersey's in hand and then think it would be worth it to move down and get a good but non-elite player (6th) + a prospect to send back to junior or the AHL at best (22nd) and a guy who you called a buyout candidate a few days ago (Tanguay). Florida has a lot of good but not elite young players. McKinnon & Huberdeau would set them up for 10+ years.

I can't see it. If I was a Florida fan and they did it I'd be burning my jersey in the street.

I can't see any of the top 3 moving unless its Baertschi and 6th. Even then, I wouldn't do it if I was Florida...

I hope you are right though.

I don't see it happening for Calgary. Another team might be able to swing it. I think the oilers will be able to do something if they choose. They have better assets (roster players) than Calgary. I'm not talking about Gagner either.

The reality is, the pieces Calgary values as high (Baertschi, Cammy, 1st rounders etc) top 5 pick teams are non plussed about.

I think Calgary picks at their slots. Any transactions Calgary will do during draft will be cap deals.

Avatar
#25 Kevin R
June 14 2013, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SeanCharles wrote:

There is no way in heck Feaster trades Baertschi or Brodie plus to move up 4spots.

You dont trade an elite prospect (more so Sven) for an elite prospect even if the one you are trading for is potentially gonna be better.

Its a lateral move to trade Sven or TJ and the 6th to move up 4 spots.

In another draft year it might seem more realistic a proposal. But given the strength of this years top 6 it would be foolish to do so.

All top 6 ranked players have the potential to be stars, the top 3-4 are projected as elite level stars I know, but Sven has elite level skills..

You dont trade that for Mackinnon, no matter what, I'm sorry. I know we need centers but no way.

Brodie is our only young offensive dman with potential to play top pairing minutes so you dont do that either.

Most of you distrust Feaster already... I trust him and trust he would not be foolish enough to make such a lateral move...

If so then I would join the likes of the rest of you in the Feaster hate....

I am totally in your camp. You are not getting any of those top 3-4 picks unless its some gross overpayment. Flames just don't have that luxury. The only pick I see being doable, without giving up our 6th is Carolina. They are a real interesting scenario, like the Flames, 5th or 6th is going to get you a very very very good player, but not with the franchise hype the top 3 or 4 are going to have. Carolina's window is open now, Staal brothers, Semin, they need to resign Skinner, Ward is still a top goalie but they are horrendous on D. Lots of talk they may draft Nurse. Thing is, Nurse isn't going to come in & be a key piece/impact on their blueline immediately. They need D & they need a reasonably priced top 4 D. Gio is a perfect fit. 3 years at a great cap hit. So Gio & our #22 for their #5. Do we need to add anything to make that happen? I would add a Horak or Butler(he actually had a good World Championship & can be signed cheap). That to me is reasonable. It doesn't get us a top 2 or 3 pick, but man, to pick 5 & 6 this year would be nothing less than amazing. Otherwise, forget moving up to the top 4, too many other teams have way better packages to offer than what we could muster up & even afford to pay.

Avatar
#26 piscera.infada
June 14 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

As much fun as it is to talk about moving up in the draft, I tend to concur with many of the people above who are saying that giving away a young player and #6 really don't do much for your cause if you're only getting MacKinnon out of it. I agree, the kid will likely be a star. In my mind however, I only move up if we can keep #6 and not have to deal away Sven or Brodie. Anyone else is fair game in my opinion.

I agree with Lebowski (above). The Flames have very little to parlay into a better pick once we take #6, Sven, and Brodie out of the equation. Thus, the only way it will happen is with a trade-buyout situation (that has been talked to death on here in recent weeks).

Therefore, I advocate the Flames stand pat - hopefully picking Lindholm at 6. Then, use your additional picks, roster players, and/or cap space to get another pick in the top 8-15. 4 first rounders would be awesome in my books.

Again, to reiterate I just don't see a ton of advantage in trading for #2,3, or 4, while relinquishing #6, another first rounder, and/or one of our few decent prospects.

Avatar
#27 Kurt
June 14 2013, 12:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SeanCharles wrote:

How do you know Sven isn't a franchise player? or the player picked at 6 for that matter? Because Scouting agencies say so? They're right all the time eh?

Its better to have Sven, Brodie and Lindholm instead of just Mackinnon and one of them.

Langkow was drafted ahead of Iginla, Zherdev and Nilsson ahead of Parise, Getzlaf, Kesler, Perry, Richards...

There are endless cases, Kidd ahead of Brodeur..

The key is scouting, teams that have made alot of errors include NYI and CLB because their scouting has been piss poor.

Dont trade young players that have already established, albiet minor, themselves on the team and in the hearts of the fanbase when you dont have alot of elite young assests to begin with...

My Oiler buddies all bragged about about Gagner back in 2009. Elite this, elite that.. blah blah. It wasn't until they got Taylor Hall that they were able to frame what an elite player looks like.

Thats how I think we feel about Sven. Great, perhaps better than Gagner, but not elite. For that reason I completely disagree that volume of good prospects > less volume + McKinnon.

The bottom line is elite players are virtually never traded. The ONLY way to get them is draft. Sven calibre guys are traded all the time....

Avatar
#28 SmellOfVictory
June 14 2013, 12:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kurt

I think an Eberle comparison would be more apt than Gagner. A dude who averages .5 points/game while being crappy at literally everything is not what I envision as a good comparable for Sven.

Avatar
#29 piscera.infada
June 14 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kurt

I think the point SeanCharles is making (correct me if I'm wrong), is that 'elite' is not equivalent to 'top 2' or 'top 3' picks. To overpay for a draft spot arbitrarily determined as 'better' because it's three spots above where you are choosing is not necessary.

[I use the word "arbitrary" not because there's no gap in skill now. But because - as has been mentioned many times on here - draft picks are a gamble regardless or where you're choosing; devastating injuries, sudden spikes in development, fitting better with certain team dynamics, et cetera.]

While I will grant you that if we held #2 or #3 instead of #6 it would be better, I'm not about to give Sven and #6 up just to get MacKinnon at #2. Just me though.

Avatar
#30 Tony
June 14 2013, 01:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

This from Feaster's PC today:

https://twitter.com/kelsohockey/statuses/345602978079703040

He also said:

"We won't have any compliance buyouts. "

https://twitter.com/NHLFlames/status/345604155647344641

I'm guessing he means on his roster. I don't know if it also means he won't use them in trades for other teams bad contracts.

Avatar
#31 clyde
June 14 2013, 01:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I would move heaven and earth to get the #2 pick.

#6, #22, and our 1st from next year, + any roster player (including Beartschi, Brodie, and Backlund).

Yes, losing that many assets will hurt.

Yes, landing a franchise talent like MacKinnon would be worth it.

And watch Lindholme become the better player. No thanks to that type of trade.

Avatar
#32 clyde
June 14 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
cunning_linguist wrote:

You took the words right out of my mouth. If we could have just lost 1 more game, we would have picked 4th. Two more games, we'd be picking 2nd. TWO GAMES and we'd have MacKinnon for free. Deep down I know that 10 years from now, we'll look back on yet another era of Calgary Flames mediocrity and lack of success thinking, if only we'd have lost TWO MORE GAMES in 12/13.

Calgary seems destined no pick no higher than 6th for ever and for all eternity. As such, this draft holds our best chance ever of moving up (3 firsts, 9 picks overall). I love Sven, I love Brodie but at the end of the day, players of their calliber and ability are replaceable (at a cost). MacKinnon is a talent you just don't find, the kind of guy to build a team around. When you're building a wall, you don't start with the mortar. You lay your brick and you fill in the cracks after. Let's go after a franchise player.

We will pick higher next year.

Avatar
#33 Kurt
June 14 2013, 01:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

I think an Eberle comparison would be more apt than Gagner. A dude who averages .5 points/game while being crappy at literally everything is not what I envision as a good comparable for Sven.

Not sure where you get you facts.. Gagner got 38 pts this year. My math isn't great, but I'm pretty sure thats more than .5 ppg. He was top 35 league wide. He got more points than any Flame.

His rookie year he got 49pts (more than .5) Sven's rookie year he got sent to the farm on a very bad Flames team.

I'm not here to talk about how awesome Gagner is, I agree he has big flaws in his game. My point is that he isn't elite, although Oiler fans thought he was. They now realize he is just a good 2nd liner. I was not comparing Sven to Gagner as players or potential. But just in that the Oilers thought he was elite because they had nobody else to compare him to. The best you got does not automatically equal elite.

I hope Sven turns into Eberle, but at this point I'm not sure where you can compare the two except in your heart.

Avatar
#34 SmellOfVictory
June 14 2013, 01:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
clyde wrote:

And watch Lindholme become the better player. No thanks to that type of trade.

This is a good point. Although Mack is definitely considered a cut above right now, Lindholm is well-regarded enough that it wouldn't be entirely surprising if he ended up as good as/better than the top-tier guys.

However, I'd still do #6 + vet for #2. Them dudes is expendable, for the most part.

Avatar
#35 SmellOfVictory
June 14 2013, 01:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kurt

Alright, .5ish points/game. I consider this season to be an abberation.

I'm just saying, from a comparative standpoint, that Baertschi is still considered to have top line upside (whether people think he'll be elite or not is contentious), which is what Eberle is. Gagner is a weak 2nd liner, and that's the only aspect I took issue with. I still understand the underlying premise behind your comment, and it's not unreasonable to recognize that the frame of reference for a fanbase that's relatively devoid of high-end prospects is going to be a little off.

Avatar
#36 Kevin R
June 14 2013, 01:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

This is a good point. Although Mack is definitely considered a cut above right now, Lindholm is well-regarded enough that it wouldn't be entirely surprising if he ended up as good as/better than the top-tier guys.

However, I'd still do #6 + vet for #2. Them dudes is expendable, for the most part.

I would too but the problem is that would not be enough to get #2. So what price do you pay? Putting it in context, what if a Philly or Vanc or Montreal approached us about wanting our #6. What would you demand? Probably something way out there & they'll look at us & say, just keep your pick. & that's what we are going to have to tell Col, Florida & Tampa & probably Nashville. Carolina, well that's another story.........................

Avatar
#37 First Name Unidentified
June 14 2013, 02:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If I hold one of the top 2 picks in this year's draft, the only way you get my attention is if you're offering up a Malkin or a Stamkos or a Tavares. Else, you're screaming on deaf ears.

Nate Mac is a Malkin or a Stamkos or a Tavares type of talent, which only comes around once in a few years.

I would give up Sven or Backlund and/or anybody else (except Brodie) on this team to get to that top 2 pick. But there won't be any takers.

Avatar
#38 Sean Bennett
June 14 2013, 02:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

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.

Avatar
#39 Sean Bennett
June 14 2013, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

"Boston and Detroit are examples of recent clubs that have won and never picked top-5"

Seguin was picked 2nd overall.

Yes, that was an oversight. I forgot they had Toronto's pick. However, if you think Seguin was integral to Boston's cup run, or even this one, I got a pet dodo bird to sell you.

Avatar
#40 suba steve
June 14 2013, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Why do I get the feeling that if we had lost that Apr 13 game vs EDM (and thus be slated to pick #4), there would still be a lot of posts saying we gotta move up to #1 or #2?

Be thankful for the three firsts we have and accept the bounty that I hope they provide. There is another amateur draft in 2014, and Flames are quite likely to be drafting high at that one too. And next March/April, don't cheer and high-five if we win a meaningless game, even if it is against Edmonton. Cause you know what it cost us in 2013.

Avatar
#41 Clyde
June 14 2013, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Gmac84 wrote:

I have to agree with Burning Sensation here. There is not one player in our system i wouldn't package with picks to get Nathan Mckinnon. He seems as close to a generational player we've seen since Crosby, and the kind of player you can build around.

I love the killer B's, but removing sentiment from the situation and i think it's a no brainer.

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

Avatar
#42 Baalzamon
June 14 2013, 03:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BurningSensation

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).

Avatar
#43 Dave
June 14 2013, 04:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

a lot of people might disagree but I think Chicago's best players are Keith and Seabrook. I don't mean to minimize what Toews, Kane, or Hossa bring to the table.

Regardless of who is better. Chicago is a deep team at almost all positions that is why they are in the finals.

Avatar
#44 Chris
June 14 2013, 04:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

Why do I get the feeling that if we had lost that Apr 13 game vs EDM (and thus be slated to pick #4), there would still be a lot of posts saying we gotta move up to #1 or #2?

Be thankful for the three firsts we have and accept the bounty that I hope they provide. There is another amateur draft in 2014, and Flames are quite likely to be drafting high at that one too. And next March/April, don't cheer and high-five if we win a meaningless game, even if it is against Edmonton. Cause you know what it cost us in 2013.

We just have to live with the results of what happened.

If it makes you feel better, think of what happened to Edmonton a few years back.

Remember that play where Patrick Stefan misses putting the puck in the empty net from 2 ft out? Then Hemsky scores at the other end with 2 seconds left. Wild stuff.

The extra point in the standings that Edmonton got on that play pushed them into a tie with Chicago, and as a result Chicago ended up finishing 5th last overall, behind Edmonton. Chicago then won the draft lottery and selected Patrick Kane 1st overall.

Maybe Kane is now the Captain of the cup-winning Oilers today, if not for Patrick Stefan.

The Flames winning a meaningless game is peanuts, compared to that. :)

Avatar
#45 suba steve
June 14 2013, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Chris

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.

Avatar
#46 BurningSensation
June 14 2013, 05:01PM
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 is the 2nd center I was thinking of. He was at C for the Hawks first cup run. Handzus' arrival made his preference to be on the wing easier.

Avatar
#47 Baalzamon
June 14 2013, 05:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@BurningSensation

Ah. Well, Sharp is definitely an excellent player, no doubt about that. They got him through a really bizarre trade, IIRC.

Avatar
#48 SeanCharles
June 14 2013, 05:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It's disturbing how so many have given up on Sven already, in that most wouldn't even think twice about trading Sven, 6th overall + for 2nd overall...

I want Mackinnon too, but I'd rather take my chances at 6 and keep Sven and Brodie.

Sven and Brodie are gonna be important players for this team moving forward.

Also, I honestly doubt a top 10 ranked prospect in the whole league (Sven) and 6th overall in a deep draft for 2nd overall is good assets management.

I think Feaster hangs up the phone if Sven or Brodie AND the 6th overall are included in any trade to move up.

Glad Jay is GM not any of you guys haha, no offence....I still respect differing opinions.

Avatar
#49 Double Dion
June 14 2013, 06:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
First Name Unidentified wrote:

If I hold one of the top 2 picks in this year's draft, the only way you get my attention is if you're offering up a Malkin or a Stamkos or a Tavares. Else, you're screaming on deaf ears.

Nate Mac is a Malkin or a Stamkos or a Tavares type of talent, which only comes around once in a few years.

I would give up Sven or Backlund and/or anybody else (except Brodie) on this team to get to that top 2 pick. But there won't be any takers.

How exactly is Mackinnon a Malkin, Stamkos or even Tavares? I equate him more in the Toews vein. He's not nearly as offensively gifted as the three you mentioned. Take a look at the stats and those guys weren't playing with Drouin. Tavares put up 134 points TWO YEARS BEFORE his draft year. Mackinnon isn't even in the same stratosphere. He had more points as a 15 year old on exceptional player status that Mackinnon did this year.

Avatar
#50 Baalzamon
June 14 2013, 06:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Double Dion

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.

Comments are closed for this article.