Random Thoughts - Flames 2013 Draft

Kent Wilson
July 01 2013 10:50AM

 

 

Now that "the most important draft in organizational history" is over it's time to pick through the wreckage a bit...

- Although I half expected the Flames to deal at least one of their first rounders for some sort of return (or at least waste one on something stupid like a goalie), the team did good work in getting three 70+ point forwards. Sean Monahan was the natural choice at six, even though there are questions about his true offensive upside in the show. As we mentioned in his draft profile, Monahan was the 67's offense this year, but he was also very dependent on the PP to get his points, which is a pair of mixed signals. 

There's no question Monahan is NHL-sized already and has played in the toughest circumstances as a pivot in junior. He should more or less leap fully formed into the NHL down the road.

- On that note, I'm almost certain that the Flames are going want to sell hope this upcoming season, meaning they are going to push Monahan onto the parent roster to start the year. As relatively complete as the kid's game is already, that probably doesn't make sense from a hockey perspective - Monahan has yet to truly dominate junior in the Taylor Hall/Steven Stamkos sense, so there's no reason to assume he'd be able to make the jump and be an impact player right away. In addition, the Flames aren't going to win anything next year anyways, so burning a year of Monhahan's entry-level contract so he can play 3rd/4th line minutes while the team struggles is a waste.

Like many tweener kids, Monhahan would likely be best served as a 19-year finding his legs in the AHL to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, thanks to the arrangement between junior and pro hockey, he is ineligible to play in Abbotsford, so it's either Calgary or Ottawa for Sean next year. And unless he's, say, Gabriel Landeskog, Monahan should definitely go back to Ottawa.

- The 22nd pick, of course, is much more contentious. Emile Poirier was well down the list of most consensus scouting firms. Which isn't to say that other NHL teams didn't covet him, although it certainly suggests he could have been had later. Of course, the real issue (like the Jankowski move down the year prior when Teuvo Teravainen was still available) was the presence of a much higher ranked talent in Hunter Shinkaruk.

The Calgary kid and Medicine Hat Tiger was considered a top-10 talent by many heading into the season. He took a marginal step backwards, though, after scoring a mind-boggling 49 goals and 91 points in his draft-1 season. This past year, he "only" managed 37 goals and 86 points (and a much worse -13 rating), which, when combined with his less than ideal size (5'10, 180) seemed to scare a lot of teams off, including the Flames.

Still, Hunter's 177 points in his past 130 games was easily one of the best two season totals of any draft eligible junior player in 2013. Although it's somewhat worrisome to see a kid run in place, it's also indicative that he put together back-to-back 85+ point seasons.

Poirier, on the other hand, is much more flash-in-the-pan relative to Shinkaruk. The December, 1994 birthday winger has only played two seasons in the QMJHL so far (one fewer than you would expect of a soon-to-be 19 year old) and was only a 15-goal, 40-point player as a rookie in 2011-12.

His ascension up the depth chart on a bad Gatineau team was capped off by a playoffs that saw him score 10 points in 10 games. The steep slope of his improvement may be what convinced the Flames to go "off-board" at 22 to pick him. On top of having good size, good speed and high-end passing ability, Poirier also led his club in scoring by 16 points over second place Tomas Hyka (although Kyka only played 49 games).

So there's some things to like about the kid. I will go through his numbers in more detail this week to determine his team% and ES/PP splits.

The red flag here is how small of a sample we're talking about. Poirier came out of nowhere after being a just okay 40-point QMJHL rookie in his 17-18 year old season and the basis of his rise seems to be a very strong second half of a year and a 10-game playoff run. Relative to Shinkaruk, Poirier's body of work is much smaller and therefore much less proven. For example, Hunter scored 16 goals and 42 points in 2010-11 as a 16-17 year old, a year before Poirier even made major-junior. Keep in mind that the Quebec league tends to be a bit easier to score in as well.

We won't know for years if the Flames made the right choice in this instance. The guy they took had some things to like, but there's certainly some risk involved.

- Morgan Klimchuk was much less of a question mark choice at 28. The only guy to outscore Klimchuk on the Regina Pats was three years his senior. The next guy on the scoring list was a full 30-points back with just 45 points in 46 games. Klimchuk is not very big and most scouting reports say he'll need to up his strength and size to make it past junior, but nabbing a 36-goal, better than PPG guy at the end of the first round is decent work.

- After round 1, there isn't much to talk about. Feaster failed to nab any other early-to-mid picks so it's even more baffling that the organization decided to use their lone choice between 30-100 on man mountain Keegan Kanzig. The 6'7", 240+ pound defender, by all accounts, is a guy who can't really skate, can't handle the puck and has no offense to speak of. He was ranked in the 190's amongst North American skaters by Central Scouting. Corey Pronman didn't rank him in the top-100 either.

The only thing you can really say about Kanzig is he is huge, mean and can drop the gloves with anyone. Which is a description of Derek Boogaard and John Scott, but not of anyone who is actually useful at the NHL level. I woudn't even endorse using a 7th round pick on this type of player since they can generally be had via free agency or waivers quite easily, so wasting a top-90 pick on him is flat-out mystifying.

Organizationally, Chris Breen is comparable, except that he is 20-pounds lighter and doesn't tend to rack up the PIM's like Kanzig. Remember, Breen was signed as a free agent out of junior after being undrafted and, at 24 years old, has yet to play a single NHL game.

BTW - Jordan Subban and JC Lipon were both chosen AFTER Kanzig yesterday.

- Eric Roy is probably the only Flames post-first round pick with any hope of doing anything. As mentioned yesterday and in his darkhorse profile, the kid has a lot to learn in the defensive end, which is naturally a major concern for defenseman as they try to transition to the pro game. If someone can reach Roy and teach him how to play in his own end, however, he has the tools to make some noise. 

- Beyond that, the rest of the picks are typical 6th and 7th round long-bombs. We can't say much about them at this point and they probably aren't worth discussing until they have at least a draft+1 season under their belt.

- Overall, Calgary beefed up their collection of offensive prospects via the first round, which is good, but it doesn't look like they got much value beyond that this weekend, aside from maybe the Roy gamble. What's additionally surprising about the Kanzig and Poirier picks is that the team didn't attempt to trade down and beef up their number of selections in return. It's a good bet either guy could have been had a little later on givn their general standing amongst scouts (especially Kanzig), so it's odd the team wasn't able to move down a tad and one or two more 3rd/4th/5th rounders. Oh well.

- I'm also a bit disappointed the Flames weren't in on one of Cal Clutterbuck or Michael Frolik. Clutterbuck was had for Nino Niederreiter, so it's understandable that the Flames couldn't match return, but Frolik (a long time trade target of mine) went to Winnipeg for just a 3rd + 5th round picks. Frolik was had for Kanzig and Roy more or less.

He might never be a 20-goal scorer again, but Frolik is a young, useful bottom-6 possession/PK guy who would be cheap to sign and could firm up a team's forward depth for years to come. He certainly wouldn't be the difference maker for a rebuilding club like the Flames, but his addition would have been a small step in the right direction.

The good news is the Hawks gutted some of their bottom-6 depth (Bolland and Frolik trades) and signed Bickell to a bad deal this weekend, which weakens them and also means the Flames can't go out and sign Bickell to a bad deal themselves. Word is capable middle rotation winger Viktor Stalberg is also on the outs in Chicago and he would make a much more sensible target for the Flames to sign come July 5.

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 Uppies
July 02 2013, 12:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

It's ridiculous how the media jumps all over the Flames for taking a player earlier than a scouting agency (who would probably have pro scouting jobs if they were the best) had them ranked. Especially a kid that I have heard described as one of the top risers in the draft. Yet the same media has little to say about The Red Wings taking a kid (Tyler Bertuzzi) 58th that I can't even find ranked in the top 200 among NA skaters. I guess Det is just smarter than everyone else

Avatar
#2 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
Derzie wrote:

Nobody KNOWS if this is a good draft or a bad draft for the Flames. None of these players have shown us anything in the Saddledome nor will they for a long time. That said, every player in the draft list has SOME upside or they wouldn't be on anybody's radar. Why people are mad is because Feaster and his crew don't act as we expect them to given our situation. Picking Monahan at 6? Off to a good start. OK, time for 22. We all have 20 names (including a Calgary kid who has dropped into or lap) we can shout at the screen as Feaster walks to the podium. The fact that he picks one that NO ONE would have picked without a dart makes people furious. It may be a great pick or a terrible pick. Who knows? The fact that he 'goes off the board' when he said he would not is strike 1. Klimchuck is back in the 'expected' range again. After that? A surprisingly eloquent refridgerator who will never see pro hockey (strike 2), a guy that Weisbrod probably saw on a visit to watch his other NCAA pig-in-a-poke Janko (strike 3), the obligatory Peruvian High Schooler (wild pitch)that no one can find out anything about. And you wonder why people are mad? Drunken sailors get lucky once and a while too but it doesn't make it alright. F*** Feaster and his band of clowns.

You literally went from saying 'nobody knows how good these picks will be' to cursing Feaster and his scouts in one large spit flecked paragraph.

If bi-polar disorder could diagnosed via internet you would be the poster child.

Avatar
#3 suba steve
July 01 2013, 08:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Anyone else find it ironic that many FN posters and at least one FN writer have pulled out the old "Feaster and the Flames scouts think they are the smartest ones at the draft" thing. Obviously, those that make this statement would be the smartest, if they could only get into that room!

Thinking you are the smartest is fine, and I actually prefer that in a management group and scouting dept. at the NHL draft. Shows confidence in your hard work. Telling everyone that you would be smarter then that group...well, that's just the opposite of smart.

Avatar
#4 Justin Azevedo
July 02 2013, 12:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

people: there is a difference between cerebral ability/intellect and smarts.

feaster has a significant amount of the first, and, when it comes to hockey, not much of the second.

fact: the best people for the job are not usually the people in the job. this is not the weberian theory of bureaucracy at work here. personal realtionships and such are always put into play. think about the leader at the head of the political party you subscribe to. you may think you can do a better job, and it's possible that you can - but by the logic displayed above, because he has the job already your opinions are somehow less valid.

for us to critique the organization to the degrees we do is our prerogative. personally, i'm happy to argue with anyone here about anything ever so long as the arguments are based in fact and not the psuedo-psycho analysis that is often mentioned here. real, empirical facts are valued more than anything else.

carry on with civility, gents.

Avatar
#5 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

For me there were two real surprises about this draft;

1. Passing on Shinkaruk

2. Keegan Kanzig in the 3rd

Shinkaruk because I've seen the kid play live, and because he is from Calgary and wasn't supposed to be available at our draft slot. That isn't to say I am displeased with who we took in Porier, because looking over the kids skillset and stats you get the impression of a budding powerforward with size, skill and terrific speed - all good things, and it is clear that Porier brings a wide variety of items to the table.. Shinkaruk's upside is obvious - the kid has great wheels and one of the best wrist shots in the draft. But his downsides are also obvious; he is never physical, he has a 'one-way' reputation (that is from what I saw well earned), and outside of his offensive contributions he isn't doing much to help you. As surprises go, I can certainly live with this one.

The Kanzig pick is a lot more mystifying. Feaster's crew doesn't have a reputation for drafting refrigerator sized face-punchers, but that appears to be what Kanzig is (and is there a better possible name for a refrigerator sized face-puncher than 'Keenan Kanzig'? Even his name is heavy metal!). In the interviews afterwards Todd Button went on at length about the other facets of the kid's personality - he's exceptionally smart, very driven, high-character, excited to be a team player (i.e. fight for his team mates), and has room to grow in terms of developing an NHL skill set. I find this pick mystifying not because of what he is, but because the Flames scouts thought they had to take him in the 3rd. If he turns out to be any kind of a player though, he may be a beauty.

Last but not least, I would be willing to bet money that Igor Kravchuk found us a gem in the Intense Russian Defender. He has all the earmarks of being a player, and I would not be surprised if he one day wore Flames' silks.

Avatar
#6 If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin
July 01 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

As i said in the porier post, he was ranked in the early to mid twenties by redline and mckeens. I even put up the full mckeens scouting report on the page. Redline was also pretty sure that he would be snapped up at 25 by montreal and that that probable pick would be the greatest steal of the draft. Both organizations in other words were very bullish on porier. So i really dont know why you keep saying all scouting orgs had the kid in the secod round. Iss and central scouting are not the only independent scouting firms in the world.

Avatar
#8 Graham
July 01 2013, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Taking a consensus mid 2 to mid 3rd rounder in Porier at 22 was an unnecessary risk, given who was still on the board. Let Montreal take the risk at 25...

It was interesting to see Montreal use our 2nd rounder from the Bourque trade to pick up the goalie Fucale. We took a goalie the other way (Bara), interesting to see who wins the goalie battle.

Lots of talk about using our cap room to acquire players from teams with cap issues, but the teams with cap problems are dwindling and nothing from Feaster. Either Bolland or Frolik would have looked great in a Flames uniform.

Avatar
#9 McRib
July 01 2013, 12:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Just because once again Pronman didn't like our guy doesnt mean other teams didn't love him, I was at the draft and everyone absolutely loved the Poirier pick!! Like others have said Red Line had him 21 and McKeens 26. Talking to people out east they said Emile wasn't even the same person in the second half just took game to new level. Pronman is a scout who I have been told is based out of Florida!! Lol. Honestly we are looking too much into his rankings he also had Kerby Rychel way in the second. Most people were buzzing that Poirier could be steal of the draft!!! I also love Monahan and Klimchuk has so much offensive upside. We got three forwards in the first that all could and should be Top. 6 NHLers down the road.

That said the Flames should have packed it up and gone home after that because the rest of their picks outside of decent value for Eric Roy were just bazaar!!!! That NE kid we took most people are concerned for him that he will be even able to play NCAA and we took John Gilmour over another incoming Providence freshman that's going to be twice the player. Kanzig cannot skate and a stay at home Russian with three-four better Russians let alone other much better players still on the board?? Odd. But Poirier looks like a stud!!!

Avatar
#10 McRib
July 01 2013, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Graham

Hahah, Poirier was a concensious mid second rounder by noone other than Proman everyone else absolutely loved that pick in the Hockey world!! I have been saying his name for weeks now as a potential first rounder!!

Avatar
#11 FireOnIce
July 01 2013, 12:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Really irks me that the Flames had assets to acquire one of Frolik or Bolland (based on what they were traded for). Why take a slow, hulking face-puncher when you can turn that pick into a useful PKer or a 1C (at least on this team)?

Like all drafts, we'll have to wait and see how these players turn out, whether they are a pack of Daigles or not. The problem is that Jay Feaster probably won't be around when they either pan out or fail.

Easy to be the 'smartest person in the room' when you never have to be accountable for your actions.

Avatar
#12 McRib
July 01 2013, 12:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Red Line was quoted as saying Emiler Poirier would have been a Top. 15 if season was two months longer and that they had never seen someone's skating improve by a "full two steps" like his did this season. Can you say Giroux 2.0?? Anyone who thinks that's a reach wasn't paying attention! He is also only a year away after lighting up the qmjhl next year from the NHL! You guys notice Poirier was invited to the World Junior Team Camp?!?! Haha.

Avatar
#13 Ryan Pike
July 01 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

What We Learned: The Flames (obviously) have a different list than we do. And by "we", I mean the scouting consensus illuminati.

Avatar
#14 Demetric
July 01 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Graham it is Ramo we got in the MTL trade not Berra

Just to put this out there:

Craig Button: No. 29 | NHL CS: No. 39 NAS | ISS: No. 79 | The Hockey News: No. 47 | McKeen's: No. 26

Which is from Mackenzie's lists where is was at 46

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=9424

Avatar
#15 Clyde
July 01 2013, 12:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin wrote:

Your assertion: Emile Poirier was well down the list of most consensus scouting firms. Which isn't to say that other NHL teams didn't covet him, although it certainly suggests he could have been had later.

That statement is a little irresponsible given the fact that two very well-established firms had him in the first round. Plus, Mckenzie is not a scout; he has great contacts, but most of them are from nhl central scouting and ISS. In other words, some of your references are circular.

Finally, Montreal had multiple interviews with the kid, and as Redline points out, they were showing great interest in the local kid at 25.

In sum, I think you could have been more objective and detailed in weighing the opinions of the scouting community before asserting the high probability of Porier being available later in the draft.

I jumped all over this pick at first as well. After watching video and hearing other scouting reports, it appears that this kid was being strongly considered by other teams. Hunter has attitude rumors all over the place that he may or may not grow out of as he matures so I don't mind them not drafting him. I am not sold on Klimchuk though. Thought we could pick about 10 guys with more upside at that pick. Hope I am wrong. Who says Mackenzie is not a scout? A few years ago he went on and on about Edmonton getting the best player in the draft when they drafted Cogliano. He used himself as the source as his son played with him.

Avatar
#16 clyde
July 01 2013, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Ryan Pike wrote:

What We Learned: The Flames (obviously) have a different list than we do. And by "we", I mean the scouting consensus illuminati.

Detroit and New Jersey have often deviated from the consensus too. Both those teams put heavy trust in their own scouts especially since they are always outside the top selections when picking. Our scouts seem to be unearthing some pretty promising guys lately so I'm willing to wait and see.

Avatar
#17 Flamesbrain
July 01 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Being as that a 4th round pick was used to acquire Corbin Knight, is he being considered in this or is he more of a FA signing? Based on how the Flames drafted in the later rounds, I think that its a plus that they have him instead of drafting. As he is 2 years older than Gilmour its not that much of a stretch :)

Avatar
#18 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 01:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Proposed nickname for Kanzig: the Phantom Tollbooth.

I also like;

- Panzer

- Heavy Metal (a thinly veiled 'Danzig' reference)

- Meat Bomb

Avatar
#19 Jeff Lebowski
July 01 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I love Calgary's first round. Initially I was baffled at 22 but no more. The Flames built their profile, then their list. They stuck to it. Well done.

The Feaster hate is unintelligible. People deride him for going off the board, taking picks that are meant to show him as smartest man in room blah, blah, bah. What happened to him at 6 then?

I keep reading more good things about Poirier especially stuff coming from NHL people.

First three picks are great by me.

Avatar
#20 john peart
July 01 2013, 02:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Clyde wrote:

I jumped all over this pick at first as well. After watching video and hearing other scouting reports, it appears that this kid was being strongly considered by other teams. Hunter has attitude rumors all over the place that he may or may not grow out of as he matures so I don't mind them not drafting him. I am not sold on Klimchuk though. Thought we could pick about 10 guys with more upside at that pick. Hope I am wrong. Who says Mackenzie is not a scout? A few years ago he went on and on about Edmonton getting the best player in the draft when they drafted Cogliano. He used himself as the source as his son played with him.

I am in agreement with the stuff u said. I have heard the Hunter rumours too and that has got to be the reason he dropped so far down the draft ..... no way that many GM's take a pass on someone ranked that high if there wasn't something that the average fan doesn't know. I was incredibly frustrated when we first picked Poriier .... but the more I read the more upside I see and hear ..... love to see him make the Word Junior team .... and play RW on Monahan's line ..... this pick could well turnout better than any of us thought ..... and yes, I believe Montreal would have seriously looked at him at 25 and that is why we took him .... Jankowski over Matta on the other had still spokes me ....

Avatar
#21 Scott Lemieux
July 01 2013, 03:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Really smart take on Poirier. The best I can say on behalf of the Flames is that it does seem to me that Pronman didn't have a persuasive reason for ranking him as low as he did. A guy with size, who can skate, and >1 PPG in major junior without impressive surrounding talent -- that seems like a high second round guy at worst, not a third rounder, which seems like the consensus of other prospect analysts. As a late first-round flyer, I think he'd be an acceptable gamble.

But over Shinkaruk? No way, for the reasons you cite. Maybe, like (on a much lower level of quality) Iginila his improvement last year was real, but maybe it's a fluke. You'd much rather have the guy with a multi-year track record.

Avatar
#22 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 04:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
the forgotten man wrote:

Pretty simple... Can't teach a guy how to score/snipe.

Can teach a guy how to be a 2nd, 3rd or 4th liner.

Still say that Nischushkin and Shinaruk were the two best pure snipers/scores available to the Flames at their draft slot and might actually be entertaining to watch go figure...guy like Monahan can be found via trade or UFA if necessary...snipers not so much.

This draft will keep the Flames where they have been for the past 10 years...8-10 th in western conference.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Nothing to get too excited about or to spend hard earned money on this bunch as it stands.

Guys like Monohan absolutely CANNOT be found via trade or free agency. A 6'2" 200lb pivot with 1st line playmaking ability on a rookie contract - please list all the similar players that have moved in free agency or via trade in the last 10 years.

The answer is 'zero'. Potential or actual 1st line centers do not get moved. Ever. (Ok, Joe Thornton, but I literally can't think of another).

I liked Nichushkin (a ton) but I completely understand why the Flames preferred Monohan to him. Indeed, for a top 5 talent (by 'consensus') to fall all the way to #10, there is usually a reason (like, his hockey sense is poor).

In Shinkaruk's case, he has a number of knocks against him; declined in stats from year to year, only plays in the offensive zone, slightly built (and under-tall) for a center - may be a wing as a pro, etc. He didn't just fall, he plummetted. 20 teams passed on him, Columbus and Calgary did so TWICE.

Personally, I am pretty jacked for our picks. Monohan will eventually be the #1 pivot we've needed forever (since Joe-Who?), Poirier has the tools to be a #1 power-winger, and Klimchuk could be that all-round swiss-army-knife offensive force to flank them.

In short, I think we may have drafted our future first line. Nice.

Avatar
#23 Burnward
July 01 2013, 05:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

To those who are still questioning why we picked Poirier, please check out the highlights of him on the Flames site.

This guy is scary fast, can finish and wants to score goals.

I am extremely excited and have a feeling we got a hell of a player.

Avatar
#24 Austin
July 01 2013, 07:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Once the draft finished I wasn't very impressed, but as I thought about it, what were we honestly expecting in the later rounds of the draft. Taking Monahan was the smart move. I was outraged at the Poirier pick but in my mind it isn't as off the board as Jankowski. After reading up a but on him he's starting to grow on me. Klimchuk is also another safe pick, but again it completely baffles me how they had Klimchuk at #13 on their board. The one pick that I really didn't like was Keegan Kanzig. Makes no sense in my mind. Better options in the 3rd round. Eric Roy was a good pick for the 5th round. In the sixth round you have a slim shot at drafting an NHLer and even less of a chance in the 7th. So the only thing people should have reason to be upset is about the Kanzig pick. Personally I think outside of the first round this is Feaster's weakest draft. But he also had the least to work with outside of the first round so I'm not going to be too judgemental.

Avatar
#25 T&A4Flames
July 01 2013, 11:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Happy Canada day to all!!

Avatar
#26 Tommynotsohuge
July 02 2013, 12:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Just a question. Wouldn't the best scouts in the world be working for the best teams in the world? If so, all these scouting agencies don't know anywhere near as much about what it takes to be in the NHL than actual NHL teams. Just food for thought. Unless top scouts work for both the agencies and the teams, but I doubt it.

Avatar
#27 Franko J
July 01 2013, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Kent

"BTW - Jordan Subban and JC Lipon were both chosen AFTER Kanzig yesterday."

Remember the names John Hayden or Hudson Fasching, two other players who would have better suited the Flames needs as well.

Like yourself I'm disappointed that they didn't make a play for Clutterbuck, Frolik or even Niederreiter. If the team was willing to trade a fourth for Knight why not trade a few more for those guys. Realistically, picks 3 to 7 will take time and there is no guarantee, with at least of those three mentioned would have helped the team this upcoming season.

Avatar
#28 Vowswithin
July 01 2013, 11:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Franko J

It's also invaluable to be able to pick up a prospect off someone else and have them already done the heavy lifting. Development isn't cheap, and the time it takes again invaluable.

I really wish we would have traded down 22 for 2nd round and burmistrov and possibly could have drafted the same player we took at 22..

Avatar
#29 Franko J
July 01 2013, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Vowswithin wrote:

It's also invaluable to be able to pick up a prospect off someone else and have them already done the heavy lifting. Development isn't cheap, and the time it takes again invaluable.

I really wish we would have traded down 22 for 2nd round and burmistrov and possibly could have drafted the same player we took at 22..

So true. Development takes time. I don't know but this draft maybe was over hyped and it left me wishing that the Flames would have done more. Then again maybe there wasn't too much interest from the other 29 teams to trade with the Flames.

Avatar
#30 If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin
July 01 2013, 11:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Your assertion: Emile Poirier was well down the list of most consensus scouting firms. Which isn't to say that other NHL teams didn't covet him, although it certainly suggests he could have been had later.

That statement is a little irresponsible given the fact that two very well-established firms had him in the first round. Plus, Mckenzie is not a scout; he has great contacts, but most of them are from nhl central scouting and ISS. In other words, some of your references are circular.

Finally, Montreal had multiple interviews with the kid, and as Redline points out, they were showing great interest in the local kid at 25.

In sum, I think you could have been more objective and detailed in weighing the opinions of the scouting community before asserting the high probability of Porier being available later in the draft.

Avatar
#31 Al Buis
July 01 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The good news is the drafting is finished. I was expecting a few more trades over draft but hey it is what it is. We can watch these young men develop and hopefully mature into hockey players. If they don't live up to expectation then we do not sign them to a entry level contract. We still may add undrafted free agents over the summer if any want to play for the flames or flames decide they want the player however it works out.Like everything else in sports drafting is not an exact science but if they do their "homework" it SHOULD improve the odds. I myself was hoping for the flames to move up to take a Santini on defence or a Rychel on forward by trading 22 and 28 picks . Hoping for quality over quantity was my hope.

Avatar
#32 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 12:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

I didn't say "all". I said "most". You're cherry picking the two scouting orgs that had him the 20's. NHLNumbers does a thorough consensus draft ranking using 7 sources, including MacKenzie, Future Considerations, ISS, etc. and that had Poirier at 57th:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/6/26/2013-nhl-draft-rankings-final

Central scouting isn't used in the NHLNumbers draft ranks because they separate out European and North America skaters, but they had the kid at 39th in NA:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=88636

Which usually corresponds to a pick in the 50's or 60's.

So my point stands.

All fair points Kent, but IIRC just about every pick from Poirier on was 'off the board' - there didn't appear to be any consensus among the NHL teams as to where the guys at the bottom end of the round should go (you could even argue that Wpg started the trend going off the board with their pick of Josh Morrissey).

In the case of Poirier it was widely rumoured after the fact that Montreal had the kid as their target at 25 - and Todd Button said after the draft that they had Poirier in their top 13 (which apparently didn't include the top 4 guys who they rightly assumed would all be gone - so more realistically they had Poirier as a top 15-20 player). Absent the ability to trade down from 22 to 24, I don't see why you wouldn't just take the guy you have ranked highest on your list.

FWIW the guys at Hockey Writers declared the Flames one of the winners at the draft (along with New Jersey and Phoenix).

Avatar
#33 McRib
July 01 2013, 12:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@FireOnIce

Wow, Dave Bolland went cheap considering we could have gotten Kanzig in the sixth round we should have tried to trade for a player with that third rounder for sure.

Avatar
#34 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 12:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Graham wrote:

Taking a consensus mid 2 to mid 3rd rounder in Porier at 22 was an unnecessary risk, given who was still on the board. Let Montreal take the risk at 25...

It was interesting to see Montreal use our 2nd rounder from the Bourque trade to pick up the goalie Fucale. We took a goalie the other way (Bara), interesting to see who wins the goalie battle.

Lots of talk about using our cap room to acquire players from teams with cap issues, but the teams with cap problems are dwindling and nothing from Feaster. Either Bolland or Frolik would have looked great in a Flames uniform.

How close to the 'consensus' you aren isn't how you judge the success of a draft.

Drafting is not about what everyone else's scouts think, it's about what your own scouts think - that's why you pay them. It's easy to Monday morning QB how we did at the draft by scanning independent scouting reports, but that is simply not the same thing as what scouts actually do.

Avatar
#35 BurningSensation
July 01 2013, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

As far as Bolland and Frolik are concerned, neither of them were key targets IMO. Bolland hasn't been able to rise up and seize the 2nd line center role in Chicago (after it was all but handed to him), and the Hawks brought in the aged Handzus to fill the role - because Bolland couldn't.

Frolik was once touted as 'baby Jagr' when he was drafted, but has struggled to be anything but a 3rd line player for two teams now. He's got some nice tools, but I don't see a player there worth parting with picks for.

Heck, I'd prefer Bozak to Bolland (and Bozak is essentially Matt Stajan part 2), and Jones to Frolik, so I can't say as I am dissapointed at all that we passed on getting gouged for them.

Avatar
#36 Clay
July 01 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I liked the John Gilmour pick. I watched Providence play a lot this year during the lockout, and felt he was their best skater. Granted he is 20, I thought it was a good chance to keep from having to bid on him in free agency.

Providence didn't have much in the way of offense, and Gilmour actually generated a good deal of their chances from the point. I don't think he has a tremendous ceiling... but with some luck and development maybe we got ourselves a #4-7d, pp and shootout guy.

Avatar
#37 Baalzamon
July 01 2013, 12:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Proposed nickname for Kanzig: the Phantom Tollbooth.

Avatar
#38 RKD
July 01 2013, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yeah, if Monahan isn't ready then there's no need to rush him. Monahan and the other young forwards are better suited for more development. I think the Flames would be better off to insert a guy like Corban Knight to see what you have in him. He's already 23 years old.

Same thing with Sven Baertschi, he was used improperly by the organization. He's not a third or fourth line player. If he needs more time in the AHL give it to him, if not play him top 6 minutes. Look at Nazem Kadri, they kept him in the AHL for a few years and he paid big dividends last season for the Leafs.

Unless the Flames want to have Monahan, Knight, Backlund Stajan down the middle it would be to get destroyed on a nightly basis. The Oiler threw the kids to the wolves and they got destroyed. Maybe in two years they are hoping to land first overall for Connor McDavid.

Avatar
#39 clyde
July 01 2013, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
McRib wrote:

Wow, Dave Bolland went cheap considering we could have gotten Kanzig in the sixth round we should have tried to trade for a player with that third rounder for sure.

Or, look at 2005 alone and see the kind of player you can get out of the 3rd round. Minnesota pulled a Calgary that year and took Matt Kassian at 57.

Avatar
#40 clyde
July 01 2013, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

As far as Bolland and Frolik are concerned, neither of them were key targets IMO. Bolland hasn't been able to rise up and seize the 2nd line center role in Chicago (after it was all but handed to him), and the Hawks brought in the aged Handzus to fill the role - because Bolland couldn't.

Frolik was once touted as 'baby Jagr' when he was drafted, but has struggled to be anything but a 3rd line player for two teams now. He's got some nice tools, but I don't see a player there worth parting with picks for.

Heck, I'd prefer Bozak to Bolland (and Bozak is essentially Matt Stajan part 2), and Jones to Frolik, so I can't say as I am dissapointed at all that we passed on getting gouged for them.

Completely agree. The rebuild is going to take time. We have serviceable guys like them now, need to look for higher ceiling players.

Avatar
#41 Bezer
July 01 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I am good with the first round picks but I won't lie, I wanted to start flipping tables at the pub when Poirier was picked over Shinkaruk. Defence is optional in the "Q" and that needed to be accounted for, maybe it was.

I know the Flames scouting crew think they are smarter than everyone else by some of their picks and I am ok with that.The problem is sticking rigidly to their list with out thinking that "Hey we are gonna take a guy in the third round that is ranked near the middle of the 7th round why not trade down and get more picks?" OR lets take him in the 5th or 6th round where picks devalue steeply from the 3rd round.

It just doesn't seem like they got the most bang for their buck in the later rounds.

@Kent @Ryan If this was Jankowski's draft year, if I remember correctly, his birth day almost did put him in for this year.(Could be wrong on that) Where does Janko go? Is he "highly ranked" like Feaster and crew said he would?

Avatar
#42 Justin Azevedo
July 01 2013, 01:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Flamesbrain

rfa signing

Avatar
#43 Justin Azevedo
July 01 2013, 01:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Bezer

yeah, there's not a lot of value from the later picks at this point.

janko... hard to answer your question. i imagine that if he hadn't been drafted this year, he probably would've been in the ushl where he probably would have had a little better results than in college (let's say, 15% better). that would give him an NHLE of about 21, or, in ushl terms, about 68 points in 64 gp (1.03 ppg).

cammarata had 93 in 59 and went in the 3rd. so... no, probably not on janko. his size probably puts him in the mid to early 2nd at absolute best.

Avatar
#44 nsmig
July 01 2013, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Where do these guys fit in the Flames 15?

Avatar
#45 Ryan Pike
July 01 2013, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Ladies and gentleman, Keegan... "THE CRUSHINATOR"... Kanzig!

Avatar
#46 Justin Azevedo
July 01 2013, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
nsmig wrote:

Where do these guys fit in the Flames 15?

my new list:

  1. TJ Brodie
  2. Sven Baertschi
  3. Sean Monahan
  4. Corbin Knight
  5. Roman Horak
  6. John Gaudreau
  7. Morgan Klimchuk
  8. Emile Poirier
  9. Eric Roy
  10. Bill Arnold
  11. Max Reinhart 
  12. Mark Cundari
  13. Lance Bouma
  14. Markus Granlund
  15. Kenny Agostino

tyler wotherspoon, jon gillies, laurent brossoit and mark jankowski would be honourable mentions (or on the list if bouma, cundari, knight and brodie are considered "graduated").

Avatar
#47 SmellOfVictory
July 01 2013, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

One day I'd like someone less lazy than I to do a comparison of, say the 07-10 top 30 rankings on Bob Mackenzie's predraft lists vs which players are taken in those spots on draft day. Just to see if teams might be better served entirely leaving the first round to the consensus rankings or not.

Avatar
#48 gotommygo
July 01 2013, 02:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

One day I'd like someone less lazy than I to do a comparison of, say the 07-10 top 30 rankings on Bob Mackenzie's predraft lists vs which players are taken in those spots on draft day. Just to see if teams might be better served entirely leaving the first round to the consensus rankings or not.

He's already done that ....

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=86218

Avatar
#49 gotommygo
July 01 2013, 02:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@SmellOfVictory

Complete with the following description, 'Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie has covered every NHL Draft since 1980 and his annual TSN rankings are considered the most accurate indicator of how the draft will unfold.'

There you have it. The teams should just scrap their scouting departments and go by what Bob says.

Avatar
#50 Justin Azevedo
July 01 2013, 02:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

morin 6 higher pulock 8 higher morrissey 15 higher

looks like there were 4 "reach" (outside of top 30) picks in the first

Comments are closed for this article.