04-20-2017, 07:52 AM
|
#1
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
The Flames 2017 draft picks
Just an update on where the Flames will pick in the 2017 draft:
Nashville has made it to the western conference finals
Flames 1st: 16th overall
Flames 2nd: 47th overall - traded to Ottawa in Lazar trade
Flames 3rd: 78th overall - traded to Arizona in Stone trade
Flames 4th: 109th overall
Flames 5th: 140th overall
Flames 6th: 171st overall
Flames 7th: 202nd overall
If Nashville is eliminated in the 1st or 2nd round:
Flames 1st: 17th overall
Flames 2nd: 48th overall - traded to Ottawa in Lazar trade
Flames 3rd: 79th overall - traded to Arizona in Stone trade
Flames 4th: 110th overall
Flames 5th: 141st overall
Flames 6th: 172nd overall
Flames 7th: 203rd overall
There doesn't appear to be any conditional picks awarded this year to complicate matters
As an added bonus here is the status of the 2018 picks:
Flames 1st: still owned
Flames 2nd: still owned
Flames 3rd: conditionally traded to St. Louis. condition being pick will transfer if the Flames re-sign or trade Brian Elliott
Flames 4th: still owned
Panthers 4th: acquired deal that sent Hudler to Florida
Flames 5th: conditionally traded to Arizona. condition being pick will transfer if the Flames re-sign Stone before start of 2017/2018 season
Flames 6th: still owned
Flames 7th: still owned
Flames still own all their picks from 2019 onwards
Last edited by sureLoss; 05-07-2017 at 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-20-2017, 07:56 AM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Only one pick in the top 100 stings a bit when your team is still a few pieces away. I wonder if Treliving tries to recoup a 2nd or 3rd round pick although in not sure what he's has to trade that's overly desirable and not a building block.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 07:59 AM
|
#3
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
^ The pieces that this team needs to add shouldn't come in through the Draft at this point. This is a team that needs an already-established star winger.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:01 AM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Only one pick in the top 100 stings a bit when your team is still a few pieces away. I wonder if Treliving tries to recoup a 2nd or 3rd round pick although in not sure what he's has to trade that's overly desirable and not a building block.
|
Weak draft. We have our first still, and after that its a crapshoot anyway. I'm fine with what we have.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:05 AM
|
#5
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Only one pick in the top 100 stings a bit when your team is still a few pieces away. I wonder if Treliving tries to recoup a 2nd or 3rd round pick although in not sure what he's has to trade that's overly desirable and not a building block.
|
There is always trading down from 17.
Given the perceived weakness and lack of consensus in this draft, dropping down a few spots in the 1st round could potentially net you a similar prospect if not the same prospect you were going to pick anyways plus an extra 2nd/3rd.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:06 AM
|
#6
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I don't really agree with the "weak draft" narrative. It has a horrific top end (sucks for Colorado and Vancouver), but beyond pick 5, this years first round is fairly loaded with great prospects. Some very good players to be had at (16 or) 17.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:06 AM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
^ The pieces that this team needs to add shouldn't come in through the Draft at this point. This is a team that needs an already-established star winger.
|
This team is far from a finished product. Sure the starting goaltender and top line RW are immediate needs that can't be filled by the draft. I get that. It's a continual process though as the top teams always have a steady stream of entry level players moving into bottom roles or picks that exceed expectations and push for higher roles.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:08 AM
|
#8
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Would you guys be ok if the pick was traded as part of a package to fill a need on the team.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:10 AM
|
#9
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Par
Would you guys be ok if the pick was traded as part of a package to fill a need on the team.
|
Absolutely. I would have no issue trading the pick for a skilled winger or a top goalie.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:10 AM
|
#10
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
This team is far from a finished product. Sure the starting goaltender and top line RW are immediate needs that can't be filled by the draft. I get that. It's a continual process though as the top teams always have a steady stream of entry level players moving into bottom roles or picks that exceed expectations and push for higher roles.
|
Exactly. Look at Anaheim's wealth of youth. They are able to avoid signing the Brouwer's, and trading for the Gaborik's by drafting the Rakell's. Unless it's for a Dougie Hamilton type player, the first should never be on the table.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Love For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:13 AM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
There is always trading down from 17.
Given the perceived weakness and lack of consensus in this draft, dropping down a few spots in the 1st round could potentially net you a similar prospect if not the same prospect you were going to pick anyways plus an extra 2nd/3rd.
|
Yep that's a possibility for sure although I suppose that depends if there's a player at 17 that the team really likes to which they should make the pick. I always wonder how amateur scouts feel when they work all year to scout players only to see picks traded and a lot of their work for that season for not seeing the team will only be able to pick one of the top 100 prospects. They fully understand the nature of the business of course and I suppose it puts more emphasis on them finding the hidden gems in later rounds.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:14 AM
|
#12
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
Absolutely. I would have no issue trading the pick for a skilled winger or a top goalie.
|
I don't think I would have a problem as but as Love said it has to be a for good young player.
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 08:18 AM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
|
Go Preds! I want the 16th pick! That's potentially a Matthew Barzal (of course the 2017 draft is perceived as much weaker than the 2015 draft).
I am open to trading our first rounder for a goalie but would much rather keep the pick than trading down. But if we do trade down, I'm sure the scouts will know what they're doing. So I will trust their decision.
|
|
|
05-07-2017, 03:51 PM
|
#14
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
op updated.
The Flames 1st round pick will officially be 16th OA thanks to Nashville advancing to the Western conference finals
|
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-07-2017, 04:04 PM
|
#15
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Not bad... getting a lot more interested in this draft and there are some players who actually seem like very strong prospects in the mid teens. If a player like Valimaki, Kostin, Andersson or Necas drops to them probably instantly becomes the best prospect in the system.
Too bad about the 2nd and 3rd being gone though, don't disagree with either move but gives me flashbacks to the Sutter years a bit going into a draft like this.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Matty81 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-07-2017, 04:08 PM
|
#16
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love
I don't really agree with the "weak draft" narrative. It has a horrific top end (sucks for Colorado and Vancouver), but beyond pick 5, this years first round is fairly loaded with great prospects. Some very good players to be had at (16 or) 17.
|
it's more 2012 then 2015 but its still got sum good players outside the top picks.
|
|
|
05-07-2017, 04:52 PM
|
#17
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
|
The Flames could probably drop to 22 and pick up a 2nd and not get an inferior prospect with their first. Would largely depend on who is on the board and who the other teams from 10-15 are going to take. Teams know who is likely going to take who before the draft starts, at least in the 1st round. If Calgary has someone specific in mind, they might wait to see if that guy is around at 16 before dealing down.
Or they may just opt to trade the pick outright if there is someone they really like in return.
__________________
Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
|
|
|
05-07-2017, 05:06 PM
|
#18
|
#1 Goaltender
|
I'd be a little disappointed to see them trade down, though ultimately realize the flames have their own draft board and might project differently from all the scouting guides that are out there these days. But when you look at the system there is an abundance of depth everywhere and an absence of high end blue chippers, so I really think the system would benefit a lot more from landing the guy with the highest possible ceiling with the 1st rounder as opposed to two slightly poorer players. Especially in a draft like this that doesn't seem very deep.
The flames seems to be struggling to find spots for goalies and dmen these days and guys like Fox, Hickey and Parsons will be coming soon. They drafted 7 forwards last year. To me it seems like quality is needed over quantity.
If anything I'd rather see them flip a prospect or a guy who might be expansion fodder like Shinkaruk or Lazar to a team with an open slot to move up 2-4 spots.
Also, from most of the draft lit reading, it feels like there is a ledge around 10-12 and another steeper ledge around 20.
Last edited by Matty81; 05-07-2017 at 05:09 PM.
|
|
|
05-07-2017, 05:22 PM
|
#19
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Indiana
|
The Flames have only successfully developed 1 defenseman and 0 goalies in the past 12 years. That's the harvest from over 60 picks.
I'm not too worried about the lack of picks beyond the first round. It's too bad that the scouting department isn't being given the chance to shine this year. But until the prospect development is improved, it's not a huge loss.
As for the 16th pick, I hope the Flames just go without whoever is the most skilled.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:32 AM.
|
|