Freeway's Pre-Draft Flames Prospect Scouting Report Thread

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by The Original FFIV

Flip side to your point is perhaps they put up the numbers they did as a result of increased ice time due to being on a bad team. How would they have fit in on a mid-upper range team? Did they get the points they did more from default or do they have the high level talent the numbers indicate?

Not saying you're wrong but just a counter point to think about.

Totally valid point as well but i'd say that putting up points along side a handful of uber talented players is a lot easier to do then playing with maybe a couple high end players. Ice time is only going to increase so much even if a great player is on a marginal or crappy team.

I don't think getting an extra 20 seconds of pp time a game or maybe another 2-3 minutes of regular strength time is going to equate to having a great offensive year as opposed to an ok year. Being the guy on a marginal or poor team means the opposition is likely keying on you more specifically, thus goals and offence is harder to come by in my books.

Perfect example - greg nemisz. I'm not writing him off at all at this point but I will say that his numbers likely looked a lot better then they should have been with people keying on guys like taylor hall and co. If he was in Schiefle or McNeil's shoes i'm guessing he doesn't have the same numbers he had on windsor.

At this point our franchise needs skill and I really hope feaster/goulet keep that in mind at the draft. Schiefle/Mcneil have lots of it and should stick around for the 13th pick. Both are reported to be very sound defensively as well and could like be pro players by 2012.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

After the first 8 or so players I think this draft becomes a crap shoot without much difference between the guy you get at 13 and the guy you get at somewhere around 18. Someone could drop yes - but I doubt it would be one of the upper echelon forwards that the Flames likely covet. So if there is a team willing to give you a 2nd rounder to move up 5 spots - I jump at it.

This is probably the worst drafting strategy around for a team that needs to start getting some high end skill in its system. Sutter did this for years and it really killed our prospect talent level for years. Its pretty much saying we lost our guy so we don't even want to try and land a talented player. Its a lot easier to teach a scorer to be a two way player in the AHL if he isn't going to pan out then to try and teach a mid range player to score.

I can name 4/5 skilled forwards that have a great chance at becoming top junior players next year that will be around in the 10-15 draft slot. Trading down to gain a second rounder does nothing for us. We end up with a long term project defender (as that's likely the best choice once outside of the top 15 or so) and gain a crap shoot second rounder that likely doesn't pan out (based totally on numbers as good second rounders are not easy to pick).

Our franchise isn't going to benefit from more defenders/marginal two way forwards getting picked. I'd take one highly skilled forward over three or four character or project players at this point.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

And I think this is a great strategy, that second pick is an important asset IMO.

I don't know why so many people think this way.....unless you're in a ridiculously deep draft like 2004 there's no point in trading down for more picks later on. The percentages just complete work against you as you move down the ladder. Just because the pool looks diluted from spots 5-20 doesn't mean you won't pick an nhler.

A first rounder has an astronomically better chance of being an nhl player then a player chosen in any other round. It goes down exponentially every round and this is backed up by a huge sample size.

63% of first rounders become regular nhl players. By the time the second round hits you're down to 25% becoming regular nhler's. After the second round were already at a miniscule 12% chance.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/pro...ft_success.htm

I'd bet if you look at the numbers for top 15 picks the 63% becomes something like 75 or 80%. Trading away or down in the first round is probably the worst strategy gm's can use.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

This is probably the worst drafting strategy around for a team that needs to start getting some high end skill in its system. Sutter did this for years and it really killed our prospect talent level for years. Its pretty much saying we lost our guy so we don't even want to try and land a talented player. Its a lot easier to teach a scorer to be a two way player in the AHL if he isn't going to pan out then to try and teach a mid range player to score.

I can name 4/5 skilled forwards that have a great chance at becoming top junior players next year that will be around in the 10-15 draft slot. Trading down to gain a second rounder does nothing for us. We end up with a long term project defender (as that's likely the best choice once outside of the top 15 or so) and gain a crap shoot second rounder that likely doesn't pan out (based totally on numbers as good second rounders are not easy to pick).

Our franchise isn't going to benefit from more defenders/marginal two way forwards getting picked. I'd take one highly skilled forward over three or four character or project players at this point.

Who said we have to take a character player or dman if we trade down?

There is no black and white approach to this. It is all depends on how the draft unfolds and the players available as your pick is coming. Generally teams move down because they don't have a strong preference when their spot comes up and another team does.

Again this draft is wide open after the top 8ish. To say that all the skilled guys will be gone by the late teens is wild speculation.

I think if you are Feaster you have to be at least open to the trade down scenario.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Who said we have to take a character player or dman if we trade down?

There is no black and white approach to this. It is all depends on how the draft unfolds and the players available as your pick is coming. Generally teams move down because they don't have a strong preference when their spot comes up and another team does.

Again this draft is wide open after the top 8ish. To say that all the skilled guys will be gone by the late teens is wild speculation.

I think if you are Feaster you have to be at least open to the trade down scenario.

You're still passing up higher ranked, mainly higher skilled players. We're hardly in a position to be rolling the dice with first round talent at this point.

Obviously you're odds of landing a solid nhler are going down when you trade down. Doing so to gain a 20-25% chance in the second round is pointless. We are full of mid range talent, checkers and character guys and thats what late first round picks and beyond are generally full of.

If we trade down we will more then likely end up with another pelech, chucko etc that has next to no chance of developing into a player out team needs in the next year or two. There are a handful of forwards that have a great chance of being nhl ready in a year or two that will hang around at 13th. We've got to take a shot.

[CofR]

R

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

This is probably the worst drafting strategy around for a team that needs to start getting some high end skill in its system. Sutter did this for years and it really killed our prospect talent level for years. Its pretty much saying we lost our guy so we don't even want to try and land a talented player. Its a lot easier to teach a scorer to be a two way player in the AHL if he isn't going to pan out then to try and teach a mid range player to score.

I can name 4/5 skilled forwards that have a great chance at becoming top junior players next year that will be around in the 10-15 draft slot. Trading down to gain a second rounder does nothing for us. We end up with a long term project defender (as that's likely the best choice once outside of the top 15 or so) and gain a crap shoot second rounder that likely doesn't pan out (based totally on numbers as good second rounders are not easy to pick).

Our franchise isn't going to benefit from more defenders/marginal two way forwards getting picked. I'd take one highly skilled forward over three or four character or project players at this point.

There's no rule saying that only character and project players can be selected after the 13th pick... I agree that we need more high end talent in our prospect pool, but our prospect pool also needs more prospects.

In a draft that's wide open after the top 8 would you rather have 1 pick in the top 100, or 2 picks in the top 100?

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by CofR

R

There's no rule saying that only character and project players can be selected after the 13th pick... I agree that we need more high end talent in our prospect pool, but our prospect pool also needs more prospects.

In a draft that's wide open after the top 8 would you rather have 1 pick in the top 100, or 2 picks in the top 100?

There definitely is no rule I agree, but as the statistics show its exponentially more difficult to grab a player that even pans out after every pick you drop down.

In the 2008 draft 10 of the top 15 picks have at least 70GP. 8 of the remaining 196 have accomplished that feat. In the 2007, 11 of the top 15 have at least 70GP. 12 of the remaining 196 have accomplished the same feat. In 2006, 13 of the top 15 picks have played at least 70 games. 23 of the remaining 196 players have also done so.

Based on the numbers over those three draft years, picking at 13th is likely going to give us a 70-75% chance of landing a solid player within 2-3 years. Picking outside the top 15 gives us about an 8% chance of doing the same. We don't need another 4 year project player in our system.

I'll definitely take the 13th pick.

[8sPOT]

How about players like Jamie Benn (5th rd 2007), David Krejci (2nd rd 2004), Brad Marchand (3rd rd 2006), Partick Sharp (3rd rd 2001)...

According to the numbers provided, whether we draft someone at 13th overal or 23rd overall they have a 63% chance of making the NHL. Except now we have the 23rd overall and a 3rd rounder that has xx% chance of making the NHL.

Thus, how can you argue that having one 1st rd pick is better than a 1st and a 3rd?

You can draft any type of player in any round.

I still stand by the trade down to get the guy you're targeting and grab a 2nd or 3rd in the process.

Because that 2nd or 3rd could very well turn out to be a better player than said 1st round pick.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

How about players like Jamie Benn (5th rd 2007), David Krejci (2nd rd 2004), Brad Marchand (3rd rd 2006), Partick Sharp (3rd rd 2001)...

According to the numbers provided, whether we draft someone at 13th overal or 23rd overall they have a 63% chance of making the NHL. Except now we have the 23rd overall and a 3rd rounder that has xx% chance of making the NHL.

Thus, how can you argue that having one 1st rd pick is better than a 1st and a 3rd?

You can draft any type of player in any round.

I still stand by the trade down to get the guy you're targeting and grab a 2nd or 3rd in the process.

Because that 2nd or 3rd could very well turn out to be a better player than said 1st round pick.

Yeah those guys are the rare exceptions.....part of the 8% that seem to make it out of rounds 2-7. If you're saying that picking 23rd overall is just as good as picking 13th you are blatantly ignoring numbers that don't seem to lie. 75% of the top 15 picks become impactful players within 3 years....and since you forced the issue it looks like 36% (11 of 30) of picks 16-30 during the same time frame (2006-2008) made impactful status. So yeah you're cutting your chances in half by dropping 10 spots.

There's a major problem if you're targeting someone who is available at 23rd overall when you're drafting 13th. As i've said we're not an organization that can simply target a certain player and pass up obvious skill.

Even if you gain a late second round pick by trading down and grabbing someone in the late first round, the pick in the second round still only puts you at around a 50% chance both players amount to anything of value. Its a complete waste for a team already brimming with grinders and other players that didn't pan out offensively.

Look no further then our track record of drafting later then 20th overall the last while. Pelech, chucko, backlund, nemisz and irving (in no particular order). 4 of 5 are in the minors and the only one that looks like a potential nhler besides backlund is irving. 1/5 or 20% have managed to become nhl players in the 5 years they were drafted. That's well below the nhl average.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

Look no further then our track record of drafting later then 20th overall the last while. Pelech, chucko, backlund, nemisz and irving (in no particular order). 4 of 5 are in the minors and the only one that looks like a potential nhler besides backlund is irving. 1/5 or 20% have managed to become nhl players in the 5 years they were drafted. That's well below the nhl average.

I would say that Nemisz is a very solid bet to be an NHLer - the only question is how good will he be.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I would say that Nemisz is a very solid bet to be an NHLer - the only question is how good will he be.

Jury is still out but here we are three years since his draft and he's still not close to being a top 6 nhler. I have no doubt he'll play in the nhl. I'm simply using him to show that outside the top 15 you very rarely get a player that will A - make the nhl within 3 years and B - become an impactful player.

Trading out of the top 15 puts us right back in that situation we've been in for the last 7 years...waiting and waiting for our top picks to either flake out or not turn into anything more then grinders. Unless our drafting is going to somehow go from below league average by a mile to one of the best we won't be plucking anyone who's going to help us in the next year or two out of the back of the first round let alone the second round.

Make a smart pick at 13 and we'll likely have a player on our roster by 2012 or 2013 based on the percentages. Just because its fairly even 10-30 clearly doesn't mean the forwards at the back of the pack are of equal value/skill level as the forwards at 10-15.

[JiriHrdina]

Yeah but I'm just saying it depends on the situation and in the mid teens, if the Flames were to drop from 13 to 18 - I don't think there a huge difference in quality of prospect particularly in this draft. So if you can get a 2nd as well - depending on how the draft unfolds - it makes sense.

Again I'm just saying Feaster should be open to this strategy.

[Hanna Sniper]

If you are going to draft the same player at 18 that was available to you at 13...

You draft the player at the top of your list, and when you pick comes around and you think you can move down in the draft and still get the player you're targeting... then why not do so

Better then the idea at taking someone you we not targeting just because he was available at 13

[8sPOT]

I understand why one would use numbers and stats to argue a 13th overall is better than a later round pick. But I doubt the GM's and folks that make these decisions look at it that way.

I agree they should be identifying potential game breaker type players. I'm saying that if that player you want is available later in the round you gotta trade down and pick up a free pick.

I don't think the Flames should be forced to pick at 13 if they know the player they want will be available at 19.

[Bar-Down]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

If you are going to draft the same player at 18 that was available to you at 13...

You draft the player at the top of your list, and when you pick comes around and you think you can move down in the draft and still get the player you're targeting... then why not do so

Better then the idea at taking someone you we not targeting just because he was available at 13

This. It all depends whats going on the day of the draft. Players may slide past their early projections and be available later.

If the Flames are in a situation to trade down and still get the player they want at 18 instead of 13 then of course you do it. You get the guy you want and get another pick. And Vice Versa.

Cant really debate this now, anything can happen on the draft floor. You have to react to the situation you are given on draft day. Pretty excited for it actually.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Hate to break up this good conversation, but I feel like we've lost this type of wholesome, educated dialogue in the Fire On Ice forum.

Anyways, I'd just like to say thanks to flamesaresmokin for some really good research. Being able to see relative success rates in numbers is always interesting.

Put me in the camp of wanting the 13th pick instead of something less. I look at the list of prospects that could land at the 13th spot and am still confident Feaster can pick a player that can have an immediate impact (provided he doesn't pick an NCAA player because that player will be 3 years before turning pro).

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

I understand why one would use numbers and stats to argue a 13th overall is better than a later round pick. But I doubt the GM's and folks that make these decisions look at it that way.

I agree they should be identifying potential game breaker type players. I'm saying that if that player you want is available later in the round you gotta trade down and pick up a free pick.

I don't think the Flames should be forced to pick at 13 if they know the player they want will be available at 19.

Agreed.

2007 draft is a good example. Trade down to select Backlund (believe most of us agree was a good 1st round pick) and pick up a 3rd for trading down 5 slots.

Would be interesting if the Flames would be presented with the following scenario. Say Burke has his sights set on McNeill and is desperate to get in the top 15 to get him. Could Feaster convince him to trade both 1st rounders they have through their deals with Philly/Boston for the 13th overall pick, and still get the player they originally targeted with a late 1st round pick, plus another high pick in the 1st round?

I'm with other posters in that I am excited about the upcoming draft compared to past years (the fact that we still have our 1st rounder definitely helps). The change at the top gives me hope that there will be improved decision making moving forward (no pun intended).

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

You're still passing up higher ranked, mainly higher skilled players. We're hardly in a position to be rolling the dice with first round talent at this point.

Not necessarily passing up a higher ranked player on your list. If your scouts have a good idea that no one nearby will take the guy you would have taken at #13, you might be able to trade down to #18, pick up a 2nd rounder and still take the exact same guy you were going to take at #13.

Pretty sure this happened the year we took Erixon. I believe we liked Erixon, would have taken him at our original draft position, but our staff thought he'd still be around if we dealt down, so we picked up a free pick and still got the guy we liked best at the pre-trade down position.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that draft lists of teams will be very similar. It is almost guaranteed that teams will disagree wildly on who the best players are. The draft looks a little wide open after the first few, as Hrdina notes (and as is which is almost always the case if you look back.) Which means that a guy you have ranked #10 could slip to the late teens in certain scenarios.

Trading down does not necessarily mean passing up more highly skilled players. It has worked out for teams and also has not. You cannot say beforehand whether it would be worth it or not.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that draft lists of teams will be very similar. It is almost guaranteed that teams will disagree wildly on who the best players are.

For sure. I seem to recall that every year Doug Risebrough was GM, we got the best player in every single draft. We had him rated #1!

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not necessarily passing up a higher ranked player on your list. If your scouts have a good idea that no one nearby will take the guy you would have taken at #13, you might be able to trade down to #18, pick up a 2nd rounder and still take the exact same guy you were going to take at #13.

Pretty sure this happened the year we took Erixon. I believe we liked Erixon, would have taken him at our original draft position, but our staff thought he'd still be around if we dealt down, so we picked up a free pick and still got the guy we liked best at the pre-trade down position.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that draft lists of teams will be very similar. It is almost guaranteed that teams will disagree wildly on who the best players are. The draft looks a little wide open after the first few, as Hrdina notes (and as is which is almost always the case if you look back.) Which means that a guy you have ranked #10 could slip to the late teens in certain scenarios.

Trading down does not necessarily mean passing up more highly skilled players. It has worked out for teams and also has not. You cannot say beforehand whether it would be worth it or not.

Well if you look at the numbers its obvious that for whatever reason once you get out of the top 15 picks your chances of the selected player making your roster and playing on a regular basis are a lot worse. Even lower outside of the first round. Take that for what it is but if we're continually selecting players that are 5-10 positions below everyone else and trading down its not a good thing. Especially if these players we're dropping down for still take 3-4 years to turn into average or below average nhler's in the end.

Based on our track record we have yet to trade down and steal someone out from everyone else...infact we've traded down and missed several impactful players for the likes of guys like pelech and chucko. I don't think getting another player like these guys really helps our franchise at this point.