Flames 2013 Draft Discussion

[Hockey_Ninja]

Next year we'll most likely get a top 5 pick. This young roster, no Kipper (assuming he does hang em up or if he agrees to a trade), A lot of the teams below us should improve a lot (Carolina, Colorado, Tampa, Nashville). It will happen in the next few years so i'm not too worried about missing out on the top 5 this year, although it looks pretty damn deep.

[JurassicTunga12]

We definitely should trade up to a top 5/6 pick.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

We definitely should trade up to a top 5/6 pick.

No reason for teams to trade down

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bonded

No reason for teams to trade down

Sure there is. It's a deep draft and a team could secure a slightly lower pick and another asset from Calgary. If there's any draft to drop down, it's probably this one.

[killer_carlson]

The question i have is if we finish with the 10 th or so pick.

Would anyone trade all three of the first round picks to get into that top 3?

[moon]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I have a funny feeling if we're looking at a mid-round center Weisbrod is going to be looking hard at T.J. Compher.

Not a fan of either but would prefer JT over TJ.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Muta

Sure there is. It's a deep draft and a team could secure a slightly lower pick and another asset from Calgary. If there's any draft to drop down, it's probably this one.

By that logic, why trade up then?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

By that logic, why trade up then?

For the same reason the other team might not trade to begin with - we value someone more highly than others do?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The question i have is if we finish with the 10 th or so pick.

Would anyone trade all three of the first round picks to get into that top 3?

Top 3 for MacKinnon, Jones or Barkov. Yes.

I think we need one of the centers - MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan, or Lindhom. Whatever it takes to get that done

[Wronskian]

Maybe I'm biased, but I certainly think that 7-9th overall + 20-22nd overall + 26-30th overall gets you in the top 3. Think about a team like Carolina, do they really need a guy like Mackinnon or Drouin? I think they'd be happy to trade down to 7th grab Darnell Nurse, and strengthen their prospect pool

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The question i have is if we finish with the 10 th or so pick.

Would anyone trade all three of the first round picks to get into that top 3?

Interesting..

I would lean towards no. I would be perfectly happy with one of:

Jones, MacKinnon, Drouin, Barkov, Lindholm, Nichushkin, Monahan.

That is a 7 deep list without even considering that Nurse, Ristolainen or someone like Shinkaruk/Wennberg could jump up as well and cause someone to fall to us should we finish higher in the standings.

We need to stock our prospect cupboard with forwards, I think the extra firsts are more valuable to us than almost any other franchise at this point in our rebuild.

[kn]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The question i have is if we finish with the 10 th or so pick.

Would anyone trade all three of the first round picks to get into that top 3?

Let's say we have 10, 20-25, 25-30. I don't think any of the top three would take those picks in exchange. Our first pick would have to be closer to #5 for them to consider it and even then, it might not be enough.

Earlier in this thread I suggested I would do this. After some more consideration, I think the wiser course of action is to simply draft where we are. This has the makings of a very deep draft where it is entirely possible to draft a top six forward or top four defenceman with each of our selections.

If we were in the Top 3, I would have been much more aggressive and try to pull a Burke to draft both MacKinnon and Drouin. But that ship has sailed...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Muta

For the same reason the other team might not trade to begin with - we value someone more highly than others do?

You have to overpay to move up. The other team has the enticing asset - you have to convince them to give it up.

That means overpayment. Overpayment means giving up more than you're getting. The Flames are in asset-accumulation mode - they need as many good young assets as they can get their hands on.

Trading up makes no sense at this point - unless they can do it by moving an older player, but I very much doubt that.

And trying to rush or force things is the surest way to screw up

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You have to overpay to move up. The other team has the enticing asset - you have to convince them to give it up.

That means overpayment. Overpayment means giving up more than you're getting. The Flames are in asset-accumulation mode - they need as many good young assets as they can get their hands on.

Trading up makes no sense at this point - unless they can do it by moving an older player, but I very much doubt that.

And trying to rush or force things is the surest way to screw up

I'm not suggesting Calgary move up; I'm talking about moving up in general for any team in any draft. Calgary, specifically, would be better off keeping all three picks in 2013. It's a deep draft.

However, Calgary also has the assets to move up without overpaying, as you say. If you can move the #7 and the estimated #18 pick overall to get into the top four to get a player you highly covet, then you have to consider that. The closer you get to the top pick, the better the chance is of drafting an impact player.

Overpayment is all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think trading two first round picks for one, but into a higher draft position is overpayment. Throwing Sven Baertschi into that equation would then make it an overpayment.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Wronskian

Maybe I'm biased, but I certainly think that 7-9th overall + 20-22nd overall + 26-30th overall gets you in the top 3. Think about a team like Carolina, do they really need a guy like Mackinnon or Drouin? I think they'd be happy to trade down to 7th grab Darnell Nurse, and strengthen their prospect pool

Would you take that deal if we were in the top 3?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bonded

No reason for teams to trade down

Sure there can be. For the same reason we traded down last year. If a team likes a guy best that they think will still be there 3-5 picks later than they can deal down, pick up more assets and still get the guy they would have picked in that spot.

For example the year the Kings went way off the board and took Thomas Hickey they could've traded down 3-5 spots and still taken him.

For example the year the Isles traded down twice in the top 10 to take Josh Bailey.

So lets say a team likes Nichuskin top 4 but have good intelligence that none of the other teams in the top 6-7 will take him they could drop down from 4th to 7th/8th and pick up another asset and then take him anyways.

Or lets say a team is drafting 5th and likes 3-4 players about the same. They could deal down 3 spots, pick up another asset and be guaranteed that one of the players they liked will still be there.

Lets say a team like Edmonton is drafting in 5th and decides they want to take a defenseman finally, they might be willing to drop 2-3 spots to take their pick of Nurse/Ristolainen/Zadorov for another 1st rounder.

I'm not saying it is highly likely that a team will be looking to trade down but it is certainly not out of the question. And the Flames with three 1st rounders do have the type of assets that a team might want if they did trade down.

[opendoor]

Moving into the top 5 is basically impossible and even getting into the top 10 is tough. You can look through past drafts to see that:

http://prosportstransactions.com/hoc...tTrades/Years/


Here's a list of trades that involved a team moving up in a draft that involved a top 10 pick since 2000:

2008:

-2nd and a 3rd to move from 7th to 5th
-2nd to move from 9th to 7th


2007:

-2nd and a 3rd to move from 13th to 9th


2005:

-2nd and a 7th to move from 12th to 8th


2004:

-2nd to move from 8th to 4th


2003:

-3rd to move from 3rd to 1st


2002:

-4th to move from 10th to 9th


So it hasn't happened in almost 5 years and even when it has happened the movement has been very small.

[Tinordi]

Stop with all the trade up talk. There is no combination of assets that we have that that would be worth giving up to trade us into the top 4 picks. Teams will have no incentive to trade down in a draft like this. It's a relatively deep draft but there's a big drop off out of the top 4. History indicates that trading into the top four is nigh impossible.

[Tinordi]

I'm not saying it is highly likely that a team will be looking to trade down but it is certainly not out of the question. And the Flames with three 1st rounders do have the type of assets that a team might want if they did trade down.

Three first rounders means squat for a team with a top 5 pick, what matters is the position they will trade down to. Teams trading out of the top five only usually move down 2 or 3 positions at most. And the most salient example is the Islanders which was universally panned as a terrible move. That's basically the exception that proves the rule. If the Flames are 6th then they can put together a couple of those firsts to move into 5th or maybe 4th. If they're 9th or 11th there's basically no chance. Don't fill the kids' heads with nonsense.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Moving into the top 5 is basically impossible and even getting into the top 10 is tough. You can look through past drafts to see that:

http://prosportstransactions.com/hoc...tTrades/Years/


Here's a list of trades that involved a team moving up in a draft that involved a top 10 pick since 2000:

2008:

-2nd and a 3rd to move from 7th to 5th
-2nd to move from 9th to 7th


2007:

-2nd and a 3rd to move from 13th to 9th


2005:

-2nd and a 7th to move from 12th to 8th


2004:

-2nd to move from 8th to 4th


2003:

-3rd to move from 3rd to 1st


2002:

-4th to move from 10th to 9th


So it hasn't happened in almost 5 years and even when it has happened the movement has been very small.

Sure but it is rare that a team drafting top 10 has two additional 1st rounders to use as trade bait. Certainly that doesn't happen every year. We can see that moving up 2-4 spots that high in the draft usually costs a 2nd or a 2nd and another pick. This would suggest that a late 1st or mid 1st should be enough to move up 3-4 spots into the top 5 in terms of value.

I'm sure the Flames will explore moving up. What we have to hope is that one of the teams a few spots ahead of us has a wacky draft list and is really high on a guy that they think will be available a few picks later. Nichushkin remains a real wildcard as I'm sure some teams will stay far away from him due to the Russian issues and I'm sure some teams will have him ranked fairly high due to his size/speed/skill combo. Our best chance of moving up may be if a team a few spots ahead of us is in love with Nichuskin and thinks he'll still be available at our pick.