What is the most you would give up for 3rd OA?

[polak]

You give up Backlund so that Edmonton doesn't have a chance to take Puljujarvi. Its not just about moving up its also about stopping your biggest rivals who are on a similar time line as you and have a few scary good pieces already from getting another top talent while you're taking a significantly more risky player.

[djsFlames]

2nd + 3rd + one of our glut of fringe D prospects.

[JiriHrdina]

^I think that last statement is the big assumption - that the difference between 6 and 3 is only a slightly better prospect. I don't believe that to be true at all. I think at 3 you get a guy that stands a chance to be a quality top line player. I think the chances of that at 6 are slim.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

^I think that last statement is the big assumption - that the difference between 6 and 3 is only a slightly better prospect. I don't believe that to be true at all. I think at 3 you get a guy that stands a chance to be a quality top line player. I think the chances of that at 6 are slim.

I don't think the chances of getting a top line player at #6 are slim. Tkachuk is talked about by most GMs are a 1st line player. Same goes for Dubois. Same goes for Nylander. Brown appears to have massive upside. Keller and Jost both have 1st line potential IMO although the chance they develop into that may be lower. Then you have at least 2 dmen with top pairing potential if not more.

Should be several potential top line/top pairing players available at #6.

All that said I do think the price to move up to #3 would be substantial. If CBJ is comfortable moving down to #6 then I think one of our top prospects (Andersson, Kylington, Jankowski, etc) plus two 2nd rounders might get it done.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

^I think that last statement is the big assumption - that the difference between 6 and 3 is only a slightly better prospect. I don't believe that to be true at all. I think at 3 you get a guy that stands a chance to be a quality top line player. I think the chances of that at 6 are slim.

It is also a big assumption that the difference will be more than that. #3 doesn't guarantee you an elite player. I'd rather stay at 6 and not take that risk than take the risk and not have it pay off because you don't lose when you don't a potentially bad risk.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by polak

You give up Backlund so that Edmonton doesn't have a chance to take Puljujarvi. Its not just about moving up its also about stopping your biggest rivals who are on a similar time line as you and have a few scary good pieces already from getting another top talent while you're taking a significantly more risky player.

That is such moronic logic, You should never do something potentially stupid just so another team can't have something.

[Roof-Daddy]

I feel like I'm living in crazy town here. I can't believe how many Flames fans here would be willing to give up so much to move up to #3.

Is Puljujarvi really that good?
Is he that much better than any of the other talented forwards the Flames could get at 6th?
If yes, how do you know that?

I don't buy it, but I guess only time will tell.

[speeds]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If it's two, then things get interesting as the Canucks and Oilers don't have 2nd round picks and the Flames have three. Additionally, moving beyond the Flames pick is dangerous if you want your pick of centers.

FWIW, EDM has their 2nd and three 3rds.

IF CLB is willing to move down to 6 to pick a Keller or Brown, maybe they think they can get more by moving from 3 to 4, and then again from 4 to 6 (if CGY is interested in securing, probably, one of Dubois or Tkachuk), than moving directly from 3 to 6, depends what CGY and EDM are willing to offer, if anything, to move up to 3.

[browna]

In my opinion, Backlund straight up along with the 6th is a no brainer.

I dont have the same glowing opinion of Backlund going forward as some others. New coach, new system. He did well under Hartley last year, and less of a role the years before, last year especially when Hudler and Jones got moved.

Does he need to go? No. As I said, serviceable and hope he keeps it up under the new coach. But in general this team needs major help after the first line plus Bennett if they want to get into the playoffs and be a consistent team and if Backlund's an asset that someone wants to pay a decent price on, you move on it.

Bottom line, he's not a core player in my opinion, he's a half step below that. Anyone not a core player should be considered to be moved if the price is right. A pretty solid pick at the number 3 spot would be that price, and it's not magic beans.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I feel like I'm living in crazy town here. I can't believe how many Flames fans here would be willing to give up so much to move up to #3.

Is Puljujarvi really that good?
Is he that much better than any of the other talented forwards the Flames could get at 6th?
If yes, how do you know that?

I don't buy it, but I guess only time will tell.

I think he's a great fit for us. RW right shot, big, fast, strong, good playmaker, good finisher, competes hard in both ends. He's arguably more NHL ready than the options at #6.

I don't know how much better he is than what's available at #6. I like Tkachuk and Dubois quite a bit and there's a chance one of them falls to us. But I like Puljujarvi, Tkachuk and Dubois quite a bit more than any other forward availble. I think all 3 would be great fits and I'd consider moving up to guarantee any of them. Puljujarvi has game breaking speed that the other two lack and may end up the biggest of the bunch.

Now as the most NHL ready and potentially the highest upside guy would I pay more to move up and grab Puljujarvi? Yes. How much is an overpayment? It's really hard to say. The Flames IMO have so many assets that we can afford to make a few quantity for quality trades to get a key piece for a certain position. Having an elite RW with size develop with the other young forwards is very appealing.

I can see the merits of staying put and I can see the merits of dealing up. I think we're in a no lose situation. If the worst case scenario is drafting one of the dmen, Brown, Nylander, Keller, etc then we're sitting pretty. But I think ideally we'd leave the draft with one of the big, strong wingers (Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, Dubois.) Not sure if Flames management feels the same but we do have a glaring lack of big, strong, skilled wingers on the team and in the system.

[browna]

The third pick has lost the luster simply because the Leafs have gotten the top pick. And then Laine had a very good WHC.

Thus, the talking heads out east are focused on those two (and a Canadian team has the second pick) and less about the guys after, and that coverage drives a lot of the chatter about those players, as it did in the weeks leading up to the lottery when there were 3 top guys.

If the Leafs picked second or third, we'd be hearing all about Puljujarvi.

[killer_carlson]

I think the Leafs pick could be had. It would be the appropriately outrageous price for a #1 overall pick, but I think it could be had.

I don't think Winnipeg trades the #2 no matter what the offer.

[Sylvanfan]

Given that you surely get Pulijujarvi at 3 verses possible having Tkachuck or Dubuis fall to you at 6 is also valuable. That added certainty holds a lot of value.

[djsFlames]

Is Puljujarvi that sure of a thing though?

Still think Laine is a cut above.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Is Puljujarvi that sure of a thing though?

Still think Laine is a cut above.

I think Laine is a cut above but that doesn't mean Puljujarvi isn't a relatively sure thing. Puljujarvi has that elite size, elite skating, elite playmaking, very good shot. He can run the powerplay on the half boards. Plays hard at both ends and has infectious energy.

Laine I think may be the next great goalscorer in the NHL but Puljujarvi has a very appealing package too. There's a reason he's consensus ahead of Tkachuk/Dubois who are both extremely appealing in their own right.

I think Puljujarvi would be a fantastic fit with Bennett with his speed and playmaking. They could compliment each other well. I think Gaudreau-Monahan needs a power forward if they stay together. Of course who knows with a new coach, maybe Gaudreau-Bennett could be a thing and Monahan anchors another line.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think he's a great fit for us. RW right shot, big, fast, strong, good playmaker, good finisher, competes hard in both ends. He's arguably more NHL ready than the options at #6.

This is not intended as a shot at you FDW, but this sentence sums up the craziness pretty well. People worry too much about the now and not what will happen in 5-10 years, Puljujarvi will probably be a very good player but I beleive the same can be said for whomever is available at 6, they may be a step below but it isn't some giant step. So to give up some of the assets being suggested here doesn't make a ton of sense to me. You make the team significantly worse now for a small improvement in 5-10 years? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[Caged Great]

It wouldn't take 5-10 years though. Puljujarvi is NHL ready and will likely put up 40 points next year if sheltered. That would replace Backlund or any other players offensive production.

The main thing the Flames have going for them is redundancies throughout the organization.

If you trade Backlund, Colborne can center the 3rd line until Jankowski is ready to step in.

If you trade Colborne, Puljujarvi will replace him in the lineup and a player like Shinkaruk will probably make the team also.

The Flames have a large amount of depth of middle six and bottom line forwards and prospects. They don't have many top 6 prospects. Shinkaruk might be and maybe Jankowski if he hits the upper most of his potential. That's it. #6 will be also, but it is more likely they'll be 2nd line talents vs 1st line talents. Puljujarvi will likely become a 1st line forward. There is a big difference between a guy that's Hudler like and a player that is more like a Rick Nash.

Calgary also has the benefit of having a bunch of players on the cusp of breaking into the lineup. And they would have the ability to replace anyone they deal off in the UFA market.

If it is possible to get Puljujarvi without dealing any of Bennett, Gaudreau, Monahan, Hamilton, Brodie, or Giordano, it should be done.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It wouldn't take 5-10 years though. Puljujarvi is NHL ready and will likely put up 40 points next year if sheltered. That would replace Backlund or any other players offensive production.

Only 5 rookies in their 18 year old seasons have reached the 40 point plateau in the past 5 years. So saying it is likely is simply not true. Even if he does reach 40 points and replaces the offense playing sheltered minutes it still leaves a giant hole playing our toughest minutes.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Only 5 rookies in their 18 year old seasons have reached the 40 point plateau in the past 5 years. So saying it is likely is simply not true. Even if he does reach 40 points and replaces the offense playing sheltered minutes it still leaves a giant hole playing our toughest minutes.

Okay, say he replicates Bennett's season. That's 30-35 points. That's only a bit off either Backlund or Colborne's performance. A marginal step down.

If he plays with Gaudreau or Monahan, which is a possibility, he may get more than 40 or 50 points too. It depends on usage more than anything.

Say though that it does hit our offense a bit. That's actually fine. The Flames have a good offensive group, so a slight hit will be felt, but shouldn't be a disaster that ruins our season. Whether we pick at 3 or at 6, the Flames should be a bubble team next year.

The different comes whether you think having a guy like Puljujarvi will make it more likely than #6 to win the cup in a couple seasons. I think it does, but there are other ways of getting there, but getting #3 makes it a bit easier though. The Flames are not likely going to be picking in the top 10 again for the next 8-10 years, so it'll be tough to acquire a good sized RW through the draft that has the skill of the Fin. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it is tougher.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Okay, say he replicates Bennett's season. That's 30-35 points. That's only a bit off either Backlund or Colborne's performance. A marginal step down.

If he plays with Gaudreau or Monahan, which is a possibility, he may get more than 40 or 50 points too. It depends on usage more than anything.

Say though that it does hit our offense a bit. That's actually fine. The Flames have a good offensive group, so a slight hit will be felt, but shouldn't be a disaster that ruins our season. Whether we pick at 3 or at 6, the Flames should be a bubble team next year.

The different comes whether you think having a guy like Puljujarvi will make it more likely than #6 to win the cup in a couple seasons. I think it does, but there are other ways of getting there, but getting #3 makes it a bit easier though. The Flames are not likely going to be picking in the top 10 again for the next 8-10 years, so it'll be tough to acquire a good sized RW through the draft that has the skill of the Fin. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it is tougher.

And so what if he does? He is still not likely to be significantly better than whomever we pick at 6, not worth the cost of a 2nd line 2-way center. You can't convince me otherwise. You like many others are blinded by the idea of a shiny new top 3 pick and willing to throw away another season to get it.