Is The GM Going to Address the Center Situation?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yeah....trading a 2nd rd pick for a euro G never ever works out.

Ha, you really had to twist that one to get it to fit.

If Cervenka was the best centre in the KHL and he's not an NHL quality centre, what does that say about Ramo being a top 10 KHL Goalie? Expectations should be tempered. I have been less that thrilled by the quality of players travelling from across the pond in recent years in their mid 20s to play in the NHL.

The Monster was once the best goalie outside of the NHL.

Ben Bishop was had for a 2nd. I wouldn't have pooped on that trade.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by JayP

I guess we better immediately trade Iginla for whatever prospect we can get because that sort of move gave us a hall of fame player once.

If we had an infinite amount of Nieuwendyks, we could have traded them for an infinite amount of Iginlas.

Am I doing this right T99?

[timbit]

For Fotze.

Without the puck, the Center has significant responsibility down low in the Dzone, defensively. He is like a 3rd defenceman. Wingers are important also but centers defend the opposition closer to their net. Ergo..more important.

With the puck in the D and neutral centers are very important in being back hard and close to the puck and teammates with the puck. They have to focus on proper " receiving angles" and " being an option more than once". In simple terms they have to be smart and tenacious puck supporters.

Centers create offensive separation by acquiring the puck with short passes and their first 2 steps with the puck. Controlling the midice corridor offensively and being able to have the vision to distribute to open players/ ice on either side is paramount on line rush attacks. Joe Sakic was sensational at this.

Faceoffs.

Generally, centers work with the 2 pointmen in PP situations in the 3 high format in the offensive zone.( the norm in the NHL) This is primarily attributable to their vision and ability to make plays when attacking net at high speed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JayP

And let's ignore the fact that they did so by trading a more valuable pick into two less valuable ones. The net value of their total picks was the same before and after that trade so it wasn't any overall benefit to the Flames.

In the case of trading down for Backlund, St. Louis used our pick to draft Ian Cole, at this point potentially a better player than Backlund. They also took Perron two picks after Backlund with their third first rounder of that draft.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by JayP

I guess we better immediately trade Iginla for whatever prospect we can get because that sort of move gave us a hall of fame player once.

Sure if all he was worth is a 2nd rd pick...but since he is worth so much more than that, you have no point.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by 868904

I didn't even bother reading the FN article but from what we have seen and heard of the prospects, it hasn't been as good a year as last.

Sven - well we all know the struggles he's had this year. Maybe we were expecting too much of him?

Gaudreau - had a great WJC and solidified his spot as a top NHL prospect, but even he has had some struggles this year, especially of late. Maybe he's getting bored?

Jankowski - I think most expected the production he has so far. He's a long term project. It'd be nice if he started to produce more in the last half of his season ala Gaudreau. At this point, Jankowski is still a question mark.

Wotherspoon and Gillies - are probably the two guys who have shown the greatest improvement in their stock. Wotherspoon looks like a legit top prospect along the Scott Harrington mode. I'd argue if he was with any other team, he'd be getting more press and play but since he's a Flames prospect, he's ignored. What can you say about Gillies, the numbers speak for themselves.

Granlund - Numbers wise, his production has dropped, but that was to be expected with his brother moving along. I'm more encouraged by his WJC performance and the fact that he is now playing centre. Flames need to get him over to the AHL to see if he's a legit prospect.

Culkin and Kulak - Tough to gauge looking purely at stats. Brodie didn't really open eyes until his second training camp. Their numbers are generally on par with Brodie. I have watched Kulak a few times and I don't think he's a great prospect. He has size and average skating, but I don't think he's particularly good defensively and lacks hockey sense. Culkin was getting rave reviews early in the year, but his whole team has struggled.

Arnold - I think is a legit NHL prospect. He's not going to be a big scorer and will probably be a solid 3rd liner who puts up 15 goals/30 points consistently while being solid in his own end. The type of guy who could spend another year at BC and might be able to step into the NHL.

I think the prospects are doing okay this year but compared to last it looks bad because last year we had a lot of big numbers from guys like Sven, Johnny, Reinhart, Ferland, Granlund, etc. 3 of those guys turned pro (Ferland went back though) so it's reasonable to expect their numbers to drop.

At this point last year, I thought Sven was ready to jump in to the NHL and produce regularly and challenge for a Calder and I also thought Reinhart and Ferland would be good contributors in the AHL. Maybe I'll have to temper my expectations and be surprised next year.

thats a great summary, thanks.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

I am realizing that by not playing hockey to a high level that the forward position is not all the same but going up what third of the ice. After all these years of watching I am realizing this only after listening to my kids novice coach's.

Can someone give a quick blurb what the main difference between the centre and wing positions are?

The centre skates the most of any player on the ice surface. Their primary job is to remain high in the offensive zone when they don't have the puck to help with the numbers going back into the defensive zone where they play low in the zone nearly in front of the goalie and give numbers support to help a defender out-man an opposition forward with the puck if they are below the faceoff dots (roughly), or if god forbid both defenders are behind the goal line, the centre takes up netfront real estate.

On good teams, the centre is the primary outlet for defenders as the centre is usually in close support to either the defender battling in the corner or the forward battling at the halfwall/point area. When the puck 'scoots' out of a battle on the boards on good teams you'll more often than not see the centre grab that puck and move it up ice with a pass or carry it out through a lane, but the puck is going to either wing pretty much as soon as he hits the blueline.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If we had an infinite amount of Nieuwendyks, we could have traded them for an infinite amount of Iginlas.

Am I doing this right T99?

No.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by timbit

For Fotze.

Without the puck, the Center has significant responsibility down low in the Dzone, defensively. He is like a 3rd defenceman. Wingers are important also but centers defend the opposition closer to their net. Ergo..more important.

With the puck in the D and neutral centers are very important in being back hard and close to the puck and teammates with the puck. They have to focus on proper " receiving angles" and " being an option more than once". In simple terms they have to be smart and tenacious put it supporters.

Centers create offensive separation by acquiring the puck with short passes and their first 2 steps with the puck. Controlling the midice corridor offensively and being able to have the vision to distribute to open players/ ice on either side is paramount on line rush attacks.

Faceoffs.

Generally, centers work with the 2 pointmen in PP situations in the 3 high format in the offensive zone.( the norm in the NHL) This is primarily attributable to their vision and ability to make plays when attacking net at high speed.

Well put and succinct.

Also why it's so important that they be very good (if not great) skaters.

Tough to be the go to guy in the D zone when you are slower than most.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

And let's ignore the fact that they did so by trading a more valuable pick into two less valuable ones. The net value of their total picks was the same before and after that trade so it wasn't any overall benefit to the Flames.

This is fundamental to all trades: that they (theoretically) give up equal value to what they receive and therefore, (you seem to be proposing) there is no net benefit. So I guess teams should never trade?

SImple question (and it isn't stacked - just curious as to your thoughts):

Would you rather have Jankowski and Sieloff or have Girgensons? (we don't know who the Flames might have drafted, so all we can do is assume who actually was)

For me, based on where the organization was at the time, I am much happier with Jankowski and Sieloff than with Girgensons (or Teravainen, for example)

[timbit]

Dp

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is fundamental to all trades: that they (theoretically) give up equal value to what they receive and therefore, (you seem to be proposing) there is no net benefit. So I guess teams should never trade?

It's different when you're comparing real players/prospects because teams can value them differently. When it's a trade of picks for picks you have to assume the value of the picks on each side are equal (especially considering they were dealing with a competent front office like Buffalo's). You can't just look at the prospects that ended up getting drafted either because neither side knows who the other intends to draft and neither side know who will be available with the later picks.

SImple question (and it isn't stacked - just curious as to your thoughts):

Would you rather have Jankowski and Sieloff or have Girgensons? (we don't know who the Flames might have drafted, so all we can do is assume who actually was)

For me, based on where the organization was at the time, I am much happier with Jankowski and Sieloff than with Girgensons (or Teravainen, for example)

Given our situation, it's probably a good move to build depth.

But I was never questioning why the Flames did trade down. I was questioning that you can say leaving the draft with 7 picks after entering with 6 picks means we're valuing the draft (since the total value of those picks is essentially the same). If we didn't get rid of one of our original picks, we still could have traded down and gained an additional pick just the same.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Would you rather have Jankowski and Sieloff or have Girgensons? (we don't know who the Flames might have drafted, so all we can do is assume who actually was)

Based on everything that was said at the time, and has been seen since, if they couldn't trade down, they would have chosen Jankowski with their original pick, not matter what. They handed the kid a jersey with his name sewn to the back, so it's safe to say they weren't kidding when they said he was their guy from the beginning.

By making the trade with Buffalo, they got Janko and Sieloff rather than just Janko.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by getbak

Based on everything that was said at the time, and has been seen since, if they couldn't trade down, they would have chosen Jankowski with their original pick, not matter what. They handed the kid a jersey with his name sewn to the back, so it's safe to say they weren't kidding when they said he was their guy from the beginning.

By making the trade with Buffalo, they got Janko and Sieloff rather than just Janko.

I think the only player that would have swayed them from taking Jankowski was Grigerenko.

Grigerenko got drafted and the Flames moved the pick.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

It's different when you're comparing real players/prospects because teams can value them differently. When it's a trade of picks for picks you have to assume the value of the picks on each side are equal (especially considering they were dealing with a competent front office like Buffalo's). You can't just look at the prospects that ended up getting drafted either because neither side knows who the other intends to draft and neither side know who will be available with the later picks.



Given our situation, it's probably a good move to build depth.

But I was never questioning why the Flames did trade down. I was questioning that you can say leaving the draft with 7 picks after entering with 6 picks means we're valuing the draft (since the total value of those picks is essentially the same). If we didn't get rid of one of our original picks, we still could have traded down and gained an additional pick just the same.

I hear what you're saying, but in this case, teh Flames were very clear on who they wanted to draft and did the deal with very clear intentions. Considering that they still got the guy they wanted with their first pick and they managed to acquire a 2nd, I would have to give them credit for leveraging their situation and adding to their asset base with that trade.

But I do understand your point about trading picks being equal (generally).

[neo45]

Originally Posted by getbak

Based on everything that was said at the time, and has been seen since, if they couldn't trade down, they would have chosen Jankowski with their original pick, not matter what. They handed the kid a jersey with his name sewn to the back, so it's safe to say they weren't kidding when they said he was their guy from the beginning.

By making the trade with Buffalo, they got Janko and Sieloff rather than just Janko.

I also think I remember hearing that, if Jankowski was taken before they made their pick, they were going to take Sieloff at #21.

Not sure if I believe that though

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by cznTiburon

Just to continue the discussion on the idiocy of flames nation article, tj Brodie, one of our up and coming solid young players only scored at a .64 ppg, so based on this article we should expect culkin and Wotherspoon to be better than Brodie.... Would be awesome if that happened but what a stupid article

Not sure what you are talking about with Brodie, in his first year after he was drafted he averaged 0.79 PPG and in his second year after he was drafted he averaged 0.86 PPG, both above Wotherspoon's and Culkin's production.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by getbak

Based on everything that was said at the time, and has been seen since, if they couldn't trade down, they would have chosen Jankowski with their original pick, not matter what. They handed the kid a jersey with his name sewn to the back, so it's safe to say they weren't kidding when they said he was their guy from the beginning.

By making the trade with Buffalo, they got Janko and Sieloff rather than just Janko.

Yes, I know and I agree. When I said who the Flames might have drafted, I meant if they had gone a route other than Jankowski, though I didn't state it well.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by neo45

I also think I remember hearing that, if Jankowski was taken before they made their pick, they were going to take Sieloff at #21.

Not sure if I believe that though

I never bought that either - sounded like the standard 'we had him rated much higher' rhetoric.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by moon

Isn't Krecji a UFA in 2 years?

Risky proposition for the Flames who could end up with nothing from an Iginla deal by the time the team is ready to contend.

First of all I can't see any reason Boston would do this. They've already won a cup recently without trading good younger players for aging players who are about to ride into the sunset.

Second of all, contend for what? There are no signs of light at the end of this tunnel for the Flames. Especially with management and meddling owners not willing to move aging talent or begin a rebuild.