This is the year for the Flames to prove they can graduate prospects from the AHL

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I'm on board with your point (obviously, as I posted essentially the same thing) but I think your numbers are off by one year.

If a player is drafted in 2005, their Draft +1 year is 05-06, not 06-07.

Yup, I see what you're saying. I mistakenly went with the following year. Age is right though, as that was taken from the roster when they appeared.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Wow...I love this dicussion, and how thoughtful, through, and well written the responses are. To play devil's advocate a little bit, some of the UFA signings or trades for veterans that have been made recently has cost us future assets, and filled some spots that would be open for rookies to fill. But don't discount the implicit value of assets that have been attracted to the flames BECAUSE of these trades and acquisitions. You don't think that Treliving trading for Hamilton, Hamonic and resigning stone doesn't put the team front and center in the media and league wide hype, and makes it clear to the Spencer Foo's of the world that we are here to compete? Don't discount the power of hype and hope in getting these guys. 2 signings with Foo and Healy since march goes a long way to restock the cupboards on draft picks spent. And these are guys with 3-4 years of "free" development included. And if the flames come out and make a big step forward next year, there will be more of those types of signings. Don't discount the currency that has been gained by scouting and signing Rittich. One of our three goalie prospects will be leveraged in the next year, no question, and my money is on Gillies.

Finally, I think it's a logical error to bundle the flames prospects together in a "group think" mentality. Yes they are all team mates in Stockton, but every one of them would step over each other to make it to the big club. Infact, the showboating in the AHL in order to get noticed makes it tough on a coach to get everyone to pull in the same direction. And while it's a team game, every guy is doing what needs to be done to advance their career. So this thought that prospects are worried as a group that the flames don't advance prospects to the NHL ranks is kinda counter intuitive to the standard player mindset. To get to even the AHL level, your dealing with players that have some of the most competitive and type A personalities to play the sport. To most of these guys, if the flames haven't graduated anyone, it's because (to the individual prospects way of thinking) they haven't yet found anyone good enough yet, and everyone of these guys think they are the next exception to the rule. You just don't get to the level they are at without having that kind of mindset. The brass likes to call it swagger. And that's the way these guys are wired.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But we're aren't necessarily talking about top of the roster players, are we? Blue chip, high draft picks usually make the NHL early. They also tend to be the guys who fill up the top of the roster.

But the depth guys, the 3rd and 4th liners and 4-6 D, are usually drafted outside the top 20. And they usually take years to develop.

I wouldn't expect an Oilers fan to understand this, but you can't just draft your high picks, and then fill out your roster with veteran depth players. In a capped league, teams need a steady intake of guys they drafted to fill out their depth positions. That takes time. And patience.



And I counter with the Ducks.

Vatanen: NHL regular at Draft +4
Silfverberg: Draft +4
Montour: (assuming he cracks the lineup next year) Draft +4
Theodore: " " Draft +4
Manson: Draft +4

Or how about the Predators.

Josi: Draft +5
Ellis: Draft +4
Sissons: Draft +4
Ekholm: Draft +4
Watson: Draft +5

And heck, why not look at the back-to-back Cup winners.

Guentzel: Draft +4
Sheary: Draft +5
Rust: Draft +6
Dumoulin: Draft +6
Cole: Draft +5

And we've gone this far, here's the other conference finalist.

Methot: Draft +5
Stone: Draft +4
Hoffman: Draft +5
Pageau: Draft +4
Dzingel: Draft +5

Ironic, then, that Detroit is cited for this model.

So a lot of our prospects are right on that draft +3/4/5 cusp or later.

Jankowski: next year is draft +6
Andersson: draft +3
Wotherspoon: draft +7
Klimchuk / Poirier: draft +4
Kulak: draft +5

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But we're aren't necessarily talking about top of the roster players, are we? Blue chip, high draft picks usually make the NHL early. They also tend to be the guys who fill up the top of the roster.

But the depth guys, the 3rd and 4th liners and 4-6 D, are usually drafted outside the top 20. And they usually take years to develop.

I wouldn't expect an Oilers fan to understand this, but you can't just draft your high picks, and then fill out your roster with veteran depth players. In a capped league, teams need a steady intake of guys they drafted to fill out their depth positions. That takes time. And patience.



And I counter with the Ducks.

Vatanen: NHL regular at Draft +4
Silfverberg: Draft +4
Montour: (assuming he cracks the lineup next year) Draft +4
Theodore: " " Draft +4
Manson: Draft +4

Or how about the Predators.

Josi: Draft +5
Ellis: Draft +4
Sissons: Draft +4
Ekholm: Draft +4
Watson: Draft +5

And heck, why not look at the back-to-back Cup winners.

Guentzel: Draft +4
Sheary: Draft +5
Rust: Draft +6
Dumoulin: Draft +6
Cole: Draft +5

And we've gone this far, here's the other conference finalist.

Methot: Draft +5
Stone: Draft +4
Hoffman: Draft +5
Pageau: Draft +4
Dzingel: Draft +5

It's true that good teams generally have had success at the draft table. And the argument I was making was that drafting is likely of more importance than development. I don't think your list of players has done anything to counter that argument.

For example Jake Guentzal. He played 20 games one season with the Wilkes-Barrie and then 30 games the next year before being called up.

His coach was Clark Donatelli. The guy played 10 NHL games, and only coached in the ECHL before 2016. I don't want to throw shade at the guy, but what really could he have done for Jake Guentzal's development, that 30 other AHL coaches couldn't have done.

If I had to give credit in this scenario, it would be to Pittsburgh's scouting staff for picking Guentzal, and to Jake himself for his development.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It's true that good teams generally have had success at the draft table. And the argument I was making was that drafting is likely of more importance than development. I don't think your list of players has done anything to counter that argument.

For example Jake Guentzal. He played 20 games one season with the Wilkes-Barrie and then 30 games the next year before being called up.

His coach was Clark Donatelli. The guy played 10 NHL games, and only coached in the ECHL before 2016. I don't want to throw shade at the guy, but what really could he have done for Jake Guentzal's development, that 30 other AHL coaches couldn't have done.

If I had to give credit in this scenario, it would be to Pittsburgh's scouting staff for picking Guentzal, and to Jake himself for his development.

It appears that you will go to almost any length to discredit or ignore other NHL team's developmental success.

I understand why completely. Could you make it anymore obvious?

Successful NHL players do not grow on trees. Draft and develop

[Oil Stain]

nevermind

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Seems most of their players are 21 or 22 by time they make the team and no different than guys finishing up their junior careers. No significant over-cooking like the narrative suggests.

Well that is cooking compared to throwing a guy in at 18 or 19 like what happened with Sjostrom, Brule, etc. Having a guy come in at age 22? Thats is cooking a prospect. Jankowski has been overcooked and I think its helped him versus a guy like Joe Colborne who left college early, turned pro and had it hurt his confidence. I mean we could dig out all the names of guys who came into the NHL early and were ruined because of it but I'm sure you know a lot of them as well as I.

Right now Andersson and Kylington are 20 years old. So younger than almost everyone who made the wings. And that isn't even factoring in that defense is a lot harder to break in at than forward. Which is a big consideration and distinction that isn't necessarily always kept in mind.

No one is arguing to keep them in the minors for years and years and years. Andersson and Kylington have not been overcooked IMO.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Ironic, then, that Detroit is cited for this model.

I think people are using recent history whereas DET was originally credited for this like 10-15 years ago and Loubardias is bringing it up from the depths of memory. So the data some people have dug up might not associate directly with the period that gave the Red Wings that reputation. I see some better data from better teams has been posted.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And I counter with the Ducks.

Vatanen: NHL regular at Draft +4
Silfverberg: Draft +4
Montour: (assuming he cracks the lineup next year) Draft +4
Theodore: " " Draft +4
Manson: Draft +4

Or how about the Predators.

Josi: Draft +5
Ellis: Draft +4
Sissons: Draft +4
Ekholm: Draft +4
Watson: Draft +5

And heck, why not look at the back-to-back Cup winners.

Guentzel: Draft +4
Sheary: Draft +5
Rust: Draft +6
Dumoulin: Draft +6
Cole: Draft +5

And we've gone this far, here's the other conference finalist.

Methot: Draft +5
Stone: Draft +4
Hoffman: Draft +5
Pageau: Draft +4
Dzingel: Draft +5

Thanks for doing that research, super interesting. I think you can argue very few of those guys stagnated in the minors if any.

[Macindoc]

I'd say there is a 90% chance Janko and Kukak make the big club full time this year. Andersson will get a taste but will have to wait til next year to make it full time, unless he makes a massive push in the minors and gets called up at the trade deadline (super unlikely if the Flames are looking like a contender, but possible if they are a mid-level playoff team looking to trade Stone for a 1st rounder when the return for top 4 D is the highest). Most likely, though, Andersson is in next year territory, with Stone traded at the draft for a 2nd and two 4ths to make room. Then hopefully Kylington or Valimaki make the jump the next season and make Kulak the next trade chip.

[SebC]

This is the year for the Flames to prove they can graduate prospects from the AHL

Not really. This is the year for the Flames to prove that they are building a cup contender. If graduating prospects interferes with that, then they should not do it.

[PeteMoss]

My main problem with what the Flames do/have done is the cap implications.

Before they bought out Bouma you were looking at a 4th line with Stajan ($3.125M), Brouwer ($4.5M) and Bouma ($2.2m). That is just ridiculous. Particularly when you could replace that entire line with Hathaway, Hamilton and whoever else (Lomberg, Shinkaruk, Jankowski or whoever) and get the exact same result.

The Flames call-up these types of players all the time, does the team performance change at all? No. So just play them and save your money for difference makers. Its not like there is some giant difference in skill and ability between the 13th and 14th forward in the system that doesn't exist between the 10th-13th forwards.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not really. This is the year for the Flames to prove that they are building a cup contender. If graduating prospects interferes with that, then they should not do it.

My point was that building a cup contender in part relies on infusing top end talent with cheap rookies. You can't get to that elite cup contention status without a strong stable of homegrown talent. Period.

[Macindoc]

Average NHL career is 5.5 years. At that rate, we need to graduate an average of 4 players per year to the big team! By that measure, we've been behind for years, which may partly explain why we've had to overpay free agents and empty the draft drawers to fill out the roster.

Now I get that this may be a good approach to keep a window open for a few years when you're a cup contender, but if that's not what the Flames really are at this time, then they really do need to address the slow turnover of talent.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Average NHL career is 5.5 years. At that rate, we need to graduate an average of 4 players per year to the big team! By that measure, we've been behind for years, which may partly explain why we've had to overpay free agents and empty the draft drawers to fill out the roster.

Now I get that this may be a good approach to keep a window open for a few years when you're a cup contender, but if that's not what the Flames really are at this time, then they really do need to address the slow turnover of talent.

No, the second part of the bold does not follow from the first.

The average career may be 5.5 years, but that is because many players only get a sniff. The best players play for 10-15 years. And good teams graduate one or two players a year, which is exactly what the Flames have been doing for the last several years (and should continue to do for the foreseeable future).

[Roof-Daddy]

Nobody graduates 4 players per year.

If you get one home grown graduate per year you are doing pretty good.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, the second part of the bold does not follow from the first.

The average career may be 5.5 years, but that is because many players only get a sniff. The best players play for 10-15 years. And good teams graduate one or two players a year, which is exactly what the Flames have been doing for the last several years (and should continue to do for the foreseeable future).

Granted, the distribution will be skewed by players who only get a sniff, and who greatly outnumber those on the other end of the spectrum, and I will admit that I intentionally ignored that to make a point, but if most players don't catch on full time until they're around 23, most will not play 10-15 years (now I'm just pulling numbers out of my backside here, but considering career ending injuries and skin reactions and the difficulty many players like Curtis Glencross have at getting contracts when they're over 30), it looks like most non-fringe players would have 8 to 10 year careers. Only a minority have more than 10 years in the NHL, and most players with 15+ year careers have been elite at some point. Even if you look at a typical career being 8 to 10 years, the annual replacement rate is 2-3 new players that you have to either develop or pay excessively for someone else to develop.

[Kybb79]

I want to see Janko this season.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

As an argument against AHL=development I present the San Jose Sharks.

They have been chucking their prospects into the deep end since the lockout and have also been one of the best teams since that time.



The more I look at stuff like this, the more I think having a good development system is way more about picking the right players than it is about nurturing those players to become what they are.

Now if I were a GM, I'd probably be from the Poile/Burke school that has pretty much every prospect play at least half a season in the AHL. It's better to be safe, than to end up with a guy on the main roster that isn't helping the team. Also, I feel like time in the AHL may help players realize how great it is to be playing in the NHL, so they may be less likely to take it for granted.

But, I'm not sure there is any great merit to those ideas. It seems like the right thing to do, but in reality, it probably doesn't do a whole lot to change the makeup of any individual player.

The ones with talent and drive will make the cut, and the ones lacking in those things will probably fail to live up to expectations regardless of how hard you try to develop them.

I find it interesting that you're a proponent of the 'sink or swim' school of thought given Edmonton's experience with draft picks like Eberle, Hall, Yakupov and to a lesser extent Nugent-Hopkins?

Looking back, do you think the Oilers handled the development of these players properly or did their lack of success (the player's) suggest they were lacking in certain qualities - as your last paragraph suggests.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Part of development is putting your prospects in situations where they will succeed and gain confidence. Rushing kids may put them in place to fail. Some kids are offensive players but if they are forced into the NHL too early the coach won't trust them above the bottom two lines, they won't get a lot of ice time or offensive opportunities and their confidence in their own abilities will falter, sometimes permanently. If a kid isn't going to get prime opportunities st the NHL level then it makes sense that they play a bigger role in a lower league where they are relied upon in many situations. Their confidence can soar and they can learn to dominate that lower level before moving up.

Janko is a good example of patience except right at the beginning of his career. Originally he was scheduled to go to the USHL where he would have dominated offensively. Instead he goes straight to college, plays more of a bit role at first cause he's so young, inexperienced and skinny. This is where the impatient fans already hated the pick. But after a few years in college he came to grow into a bigger role, gained confidence and strength. Now after four years in college many guys might step straight in. But the Flames weren't thin enough to need him to and the let him cook last year in the minors, gain confidence in pro and come to dominate at that level.