Flames First Round Targets Summary



With the draft rapidly approaching, I decided to put together a table summarizing the various first round targets we’ve profiled over the last couple of weeks. I have included each players rankings according to NHL CS, ISS and Corey Pronman. If you to check out rankings by other consensus outfits, make sure to drop by this post over at C&B. 

Player CS ISS Pronman NHLE ES% Team%
Phillips 15th NA 24th 0.397 NA 29%
Bartschi 7th 11th 18th 0.387 74% 29%
Murphy 9th 8th 6th 0.386 NA NA
Puempel 28th 29th 33rd 0.376 46% 44%
Scheifele 16th 18th 29th 0.341 51% 34%
McNeill 14th 21st 9th 0.339 63% 34%
Armia 3rd 13th 15th 0.316 NA NA
Zibanejad 2nd 7th 7th 0.260 NA NA

The table is pretty straight forward. Each players rankings, followed by his NHL equivalence ratio (multiply by 82 to get a sense of what output he’d manage in a similar role in the NHL over a full season) as well as his percentage of scoring at even-strength last year as well as the percentage of his team’s total offense. The table is ordered according to NHLE. Click on the name of the player to view his profile.

As you can see, Zibanejad has the lowest equivalency but is the highest ranked by the scouts. This is no doubt due to his limited ice time in the SEL, which is something we discussed in his profile. Ryan Murphy, on the other hand, has both outstanding stats and rankings – Flames fans should expect neither of these players to be available at 13 on Friday, but stranger things have happened.

After that, Sven Bartschi looks to be the best bet, with strong qualitative and quantative marks across the board (aside from his low % of team offense). Then McNeill and Armia with a collection of other guys trailing slightly behind.

There’s definitely a clear top-end here, but there’s also a good chance those guys won’t make it down to the Flames. If Bartschi, Zibanejad Murphy are taken early and the club isn’t convinced the "second tier" (Armia, McNeill) is markedly better than the "third tier" (Phillips, Puempel, Scheifele, etc.) then they may be better served in trading down to add another pick inside the top-60 given how uniform the talent seems to be from about 15-20 through 60.

Tomorrow I’ll post Flamesnation’s "draft list" before we go live with Flamesnation radio at 6pm (woo!).

  • icedawg_42

    I was going to ask if you thought trading down from #13 to the ~20 – 25 range, and adding a late second rounder or early third rounder sounds like a logical move, and from the table above, it looks like the answer would be ….Depends. Feaster may set a conditional trade depending on who’s available at #13. The plot thickens.

  • T&A4Flames

    Despite all the scouting, stats compiled and interviewing, drafting is not a complete science yet. You never know if your top picks will translate into productive NHLers’ and you never should assume that certain players projected to go in the top 10 will do so.

    Just ask Phoenix who I am sure were a little surprised to see Brandon Gormley still available when their turn came at #13 in the first round…oh, wait, that wasn’t originally their turn was it???

  • The guys on the Fan 960 are reporting rumours that the Flames are considering Rocco Grimaldi.

    Kent, I think you’re bang on in terms of your assessment that the Flames will see what happens in front of them and then weigh their options. If history proves to be a lesson, someone surprising might (I say “might”) drop down to 13.

    • I agree. He sounds like he’s a very legitimate prospect. I’m just worried some team ahead of us will take him or if we drop down in the first, that another team that used to be behind us will grab him. He’s definately an option worth considering, especially if we drop down. I’ve heard on the FAN 960 that if it was purely based on his skill, he’d probably be ranked at somewhere around #5.

  • I like the McNeill kid as the Flames pick. With the available kids, one might hope (for the Flames, not the pick) that Rattie might be available as a second rounder. Two WHL, Alberta bred kids would be great additions.

  • I love the Grimaldi talk. He’s easily the most intriguing guy in the draft. 13 will probably be high for him though.

    One point I’ve heard made, however, is that it’s less risky to draft a prospect with a weakness that can be worked on (i.e skating, shot, defensive positioning) than weaknesses that are hard to teach or change (size, hockey sense, etc).

    That said, with 3 picks in the top 60, I’d love to see Feaster take a few flyers on guys like Puempel, Grimaldi, etc who have high offensive ceilings, even if they have some risk too.