Slack Sundays: reflecting on the Top 20 and turning towards Penticton

We’re introducing a new regular feature here at FlamesNation. We’re calling it Slack Sundays. Inspired by FiveThirtyEight, we’re going to pull back the curtain a bit on some of our internal chats from our Slack. Think of it like our roundtables, except with more interplay, more questions and more diversions from our intended discussion topics.

Check it out and weigh in on the discussion in the comments. (The chat has been edited slightly for clarity.)

ryanpike (Ryan Pike): Now that our annual Top 20 is done and over with, were there any surprises in the final list? Did anybody go much higher or lower than you guys anticipated?

ctibs (Christian Tiberi): No. I think Ari said it a long time ago, but we all kind of agreed on #1 and a group of guys from #2 to #9. I think the distance between #2 and #9 is much closer than #2 and #9 suggests.

taylormckee (Taylor McKee): To me it’s unnerving given the state of the forward group. I think some of the forward group’s perception is a bit off too. For example, Shinkaruk v. Foo seems a bit off to me given they’re the same age.

ryanpike: I think I see what you mean. Could it be that Shinkaruk’s been established as a tweener while Foo is more of a blank slate as a pro?

taylormckee:  And as that blank slate, we are susceptible to projecting our hopes for him into next season. Pribyl was like that as well I think.

ryanpike: Pribyl was hard for me to place because of the injuries.

ctibs: I’m reading the comment section for potential discussion points and people are claiming that we put Foo way too high. What do y’all think?

ryanpike: On my list, Foo was the second-ranked forward after Jankowski; though for me it was because he was able to succeed against grown-ass men in the NCAA.

ctibs: I put him the highest out of all of us, mostly because he’s a guy who has always had sneaky good underlyings.

taylormckee: I probably have Foo too high as well, but that I think speaks to the fact that we have a larger, and generally more disappointing, book on guys like Shinkaruk, Klimchuk, etc. However, I think that given sober second thought he’s probably too high.

ctibs: Canucks Army also did a really solid writeup on him, and they projected him with the same percentage of success as Jankowski, Dube, Mangiapane etc. Plus there’s a clear spot for him to take next year which is hard to say about anyone else.

ryanpike: Considering their success this year, I was a bit surprised that Dube and Phillips were so relatively low. The highest he was on any list was 10th.

ctibs: Yeah Phillips was really low for all of us.

taylormckee: I think it’s natural to be a little tentative with him right?

ryanpike: Could it be skepticism that there are two Gaudreaus in one prospect crop?

ctibs: I think it’s a long term outlook thing.

taylormckee: Based solely on numbers, he’s amazing. But I think it’s logical to be a little skeptical that things will hold up as he climbs. There’s just a lot you have to consider ahead of him for various reasons (mostly NHL proximity) that it’s hard to argue that he’s a much better prospect.

ryanpike: When I was ranking, I tried to go back to the notion of “What makes this player successful, and what’s the likelihood he can do that in the NHL?”

ctibs: That was also mostly my approach, Ryan.

taylormckee: Absolutely, NHL proximity weighed heavily for me, though, how does that explain Parsons? Are any of you nervous about his next step?

ryanpike: I’m curious about where he plays this year.

taylormckee: Man, the minors goalie situation is a bit of a mess.

ctibs: Parsons could feasibly be an AHL starter next year. the goalie mess is what’s holding him back. They really shouldn’t have brought Rittich back, but I understand why they did.

taylormckee: Absolutely. This org. isn’t in a position to be throwing away good AHL starters. Yet, they might have a great one who might be getting stifled. I worry about Parsons in the ECHL.

ryanpike: Part of me still expects a trade to happen.

taylormckee: But who has value, Gillies?

ryanpike: It has to be him, doesn’t it? Maybe Rittich?

taylormckee: Don’t most orgs have Rittichs though?

ctibs: I think Gillies has a low stock right now. he’s a guy with a lot of question marks around him that any team would have to take more than him. If the Flames are going to get something significant back

taylormckee: Are you two believers in the “Flames need to deal a D prospect for FWD help” idea? Because then the Gillies package begins to make sense.

ctibs: No.

ryanpike: I could see it happening for a forward prospect or just a mid-round pick.

ctibs: You have three defensemen who are going to be 30 when their contracts end in three years and three or four potential studs coming in to replace them who are just finishing their ELCs. if they want forward help this year, you could just grab a UFA.

taylormckee: Long term, totally agree. But if they’re serious about contending now it doesn’t help them. Do any of the UFAs provide the value you could get if you moved Kylington, Fox, Andersson, etc?

ctibs: If the UFA is Jagr, value is about equal. If the UFA is anyone else, you could find better value in a trade.

ryanpike: And if the idea is they need more farm depth at forward, they have a bunch of try-out guys they can use.

ctibs: But we don’t know the outside reads on the defence, so it’s kind of hard to speculate what they could get. The idea of trading any of those guys for an AHL guy is ridiculous though.

taylormckee: That’s why Fox intrigues me, because he has those external verifers (Olympic buzz etc). I just see them burning the lifeboats for this season and I wonder if the NHL forwards are good enough.

ryanpike: I think Fox and Parsons are two lifeboats they hold onto.

taylormckee: In terms of this season though, I meant no 1st rounder.

ryanpike: And no second or third, too.

ctibs: I say if they move anyone to recoup those picks, it’s Stone.

ryanpike: It’s that context where Gillies for a third makes some sense.

ctibs: I feel they don’t want to move prospects for anything other than NHL players

taylormckee: I still think he carries more value to the Flames than a third, though right? Not saying he’s worth more league-wide, he just means more to the Flames.

ryanpike: I agree, but how much is gauging Parsons’ pro value worth? Let’s head for the homestretch; are you guys excited for the Penticton tournament?

taylormckee: Unpopular opinion: I kinda hate the Penticton tournament. I mean, I’ll watch it, because I am a sad person, but I just see dudes risking injury.

ctibs: It’s dumb fun but it’s the pre-preseason. people tend to take it more seriously than it needs to be.

ryanpike: It’s a nice opportunity to see youngsters in game-ish scenarios, but I tend to take the results with a grain of salt.

taylormckee: Like, if Emile Poirier or Foo goes out there and dominates, it’s going to be a news story. The disparate levels of the players makes it frustrating for me. I am just not sure it’s a lot different from dev camp.

ctibs: One of the best players at last year’s tournament was Roman Dyukov.

ryanpike: Isn’t it more of a story if Poirier or Foo (or the like) don’t dominate?

taylormckee: Well, exactly Ryan! Then, he has to answer questions for two weeks about Penticton heading into main camp.

ctibs: Let me pull up the stats from last year’s tournament again.

ryanpike: I always think about something Treliving said after Penticton last year or the year before; he basically said “Cool, but can these guys who looked good raise their level for main camp?” One of the things they praised about Tkachuk was his ability to continually raise his level.

ctibs: Yeah rereading some of the stuff I wrote back then. And Tkachuk was not that great. The only memorable moment was him getting (dirty) revenge on Brendan Lemieux in the first game. Camp is a more meaningful thing.

ryanpike: I like the concept of Penticton, but the reality is that the skill level is so all over the place that the play tends to be fairly clunky.

taylormckee: I remember Monahan looking slow if I recall correctly? And Hathaway looking like Gordie Howe. I also remember being terrified Johnny would break a wrist or something.

ctibs: Ryan Lomberg was Gaudreau last year.

ryanpike: I think the nature of Penticton is better for guys like Jooris, Lomberg or Hathaway, the energy guys. They stand out by hustling, and their game is based on hustling so it works.

ctibs: Aagaard also got a job because of Penticton.

taylormckee: I’m gonna miss that dude.

ryanpike: The Danish Dangler.

ctibs: I think Burtch published a AHL-NHL shot projection model. And even Aagaard ranked ahead of Lazar.

taylormckee: Oy vey.

ryanpike: Let’s close it out: player you’re most looking forward to seeing in Penticton and why?

taylormckee: I would say Valimaki, but I feel like that poor kid has played 20913091283 games this summer so I’ve seen a lot of him.

ctibs: I really want to see Fox but that’s not possible so I’m going to have to go with Valimaki.

ryanpike: Fox will be my answer next year.

taylormckee: Damn, maybe Ruzicka?

ctibs: is Joly going? i want to see him too.

ryanpike: I’m gonna cop out and have two: Jankowski and D’Artagnan Joly.

ctibs: i thought Janko was ineligible because of age and pro experience.

taylormckee: Plus, 22 year old at a high school party vibe.

ryanpike: The cut-off is 100 games, isn’t it?

ctibs: Fewer than 100 yes.

ryanpike: I think he’s still eligible. If he is, he should stand out if he’s gonna get a long look at main camp. And Joly just because the scouting staff seemed high on him based on Button’s comments at the draft.