Our 6th Overall Pick: Elias Lindholm or Sean Monahan?

[TheREDarmY]

Seems to me that most people would be happy with either one of these guys as a Flame come draft day. Of course, some have preference, but myself, I'd be ecstatic to have either one. So I'll throw a situation at you guys and you can flame away. (apologies if this scenario has already been discussed)

I think it's pretty safe to predict that the first four picks will be Mackinnon, Jones, Drouin and Barkov(not necessarily in that order). Now lets say Carolina picks Nurse or Nichushkin at 5th. Now Lindholm and Monahan are both available to us. What if Calgary Management view/rank both players as equal and had no preference to who they draft. Would it be smart to trade down to 7th to add a 2nd rd pick?

Obviously this is a stretch. But it could be possible management would be happy with either Lindholm or Monahan. It would be a way to add a second in this deep draft. Would you do it?

Lets stretch this out even more. Lets say Carolina picks Nichushkin, we trade down to 7th and add a 2nd. Edmonton then surprises everyone by selecting their much needed dman in Nurse at 6th. We could then trade down to 8th for another 2nd and pick whoever Buffalo leaves us. Would you do it? and do you think this is even remotely possible?

[moon]

Originally Posted by TheREDarmY

Seems to me that most people would be happy with either one of these guys as a Flame come draft day. Of course, some have preference, but myself, I'd be ecstatic to have either one. So I'll throw a situation at you guys and you can flame away. (apologies if this scenario has already been discussed)

I think it's pretty safe to predict that the first four picks will be Mackinnon, Jones, Drouin and Barkov(not necessarily in that order). Now lets say Carolina picks Nurse or Nichushkin at 5th. Now Lindholm and Monahan are both available to us. What if Calgary Management view/rank both players as equal and had no preference to who they draft. Would it be smart to trade down to 7th to add a 2nd rd pick?

Obviously this is a stretch. But it could be possible management would be happy with either Lindholm or Monahan. It would be a way to add a second in this deep draft. Would you do it?

Lets stretch this out even more. Lets say Carolina picks Nichushkin, we trade down to 7th and add a 2nd. Edmonton then surprises everyone by selecting their much needed dman in Nurse at 6th. We could then trade down to 8th for another 2nd and pick whoever Buffalo leaves us. Would you do it? and do you think this is even remotely possible?

I think it has been discussed and I think that for the most part the answers go along with my thinking and that is a. I don't think we are getting a 2nd and b. if there is a guy we like don't get cute and take him. Trading back takes too any risks that we can't take.

If Lindholm and Monahan are there at 6 take the guy you like and go.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by TheREDarmY

What if Calgary Management view/rank both players as equal and had no preference to who they draft. Would it be smart to trade down to 7th to add a 2nd rd pick?

Obviously this is a stretch. But it could be possible management would be happy with either Lindholm or Monahan. It would be a way to add a second in this deep draft. Would you do it?

Lets stretch this out even more. Lets say Carolina picks Nichushkin, we trade down to 7th and add a 2nd. Edmonton then surprises everyone by selecting their much needed dman in Nurse at 6th. We could then trade down to 8th for another 2nd and pick whoever Buffalo leaves us. Would you do it? and do you think this is even remotely possible?

The problem with that is that Edmonton likely rates Lindholm and Monahan very similarly as well, and probably wouldn't give up much if anything to swap firsts with us. Maybe they'd give us a late round pick, but a 2nd or 3rd is unrealistic.

If they have their eyes on Nurse, they might be willing to trade a slightly better pick in order to swap firsts with us if they're convinced that we might take him, but they probably suspect that we want a forward anyway.

[Enoch Root]

So just to recap, if we were going to trade down from 6th to 7th, we would probably get a late round pick, maybe a 3rd if we're lucky.

And if we trade up from 6th to 4th, it will cost us two 1st round picks, and maybe a player too.

Got it.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So just to recap, if we were going to trade down from 6th to 7th, we would probably get a late round pick, maybe a 3rd if we're lucky.

And if we trade up from 6th to 4th, it will cost us two 1st round picks, and maybe a player too.

Got it.

I didn't say anything about what it would cost to move from 6 to 4, but, yes, it would cost a lot more to upgrade from Monahan/Lindholm to Barkov than it would to make a fairly lateral move from one of Monahan and Lindholm to the other of them.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So just to recap, if we were going to trade down from 6th to 7th, we would probably get a late round pick, maybe a 3rd if we're lucky.

And if we trade up from 6th to 4th, it will cost us two 1st round picks, and maybe a player too.

Got it.

Yes, because the 1st "significant" drop in quality is after Barkov. After that, depending on which rankings you're looking at, it looks like after Lindholm, Monahan, Nichushkin and maybe Nurse there's another drop in talent.

So for instance it would take more to move from the 10th pick down to the 8th pick than in would to move from the 7th pick to the 5th because you're moving into a higher quality tier.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I didn't say anything about what it would cost to move from 6 to 4, but, yes, it would cost a lot more to upgrade from Monahan/Lindholm to Barkov than it would to make a fairly lateral move from one of Monahan and Lindholm to the other of them.

Of course it would cost more. I was just illustrating how crazy and one-sided some suggestions have been.

[PlayfulGenius]

To answer the question as asked, yes, I'd absolutely take those deals in those scenarios...it would be beyond silly not to do so.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Yes, because the 1st "significant" drop in quality is after Barkov. After that, depending on which rankings you're looking at, it looks like after Lindholm, Monahan, Nichushkin and maybe Nurse there's another drop in talent.

So for instance it would take more to move from the 10th pick down to the 8th pick than in would to move from the 7th pick to the 5th because you're moving into a higher quality tier.

The drop is probably not as large as you are suggesting (and certainly not as large as the above trade suggestions implied). Some rankings have even had Lindholm (or Nichushkin or Nurse) ahead of Barkov.

As for your suggestion with respect to 10 to 8 vs 7 to 5. With all due respect, I will simply agree to disagree.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Feaster won't be trading down folks. He already said that he would trade our 1st rounders to move up.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Feaster won't be trading down folks. He already said that he would trade our 1st rounders to move up.

Source?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Source?

http://video.flames.nhl.com/videocen...d=11&id=243852 Part 1

http://video.flames.nhl.com/videocen...d=11&id=243852 Part 2

It's in there. The Flames' original First rounder is not going to be moving down. He will explore all options to move up including adding one of the other first rounders they acquired.

[Rapidfire999]

We should trade all 3 1st rounders for #2/3!

[Southside]

No. It's a deep draft we'll get 3 really good players. Another loss or 2 down the stretch would have been OK though.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Tampa's so deep with good young forward prospects, I wonder if they're willing to swap places with us. I can't see any of the other teams wanting to give up their pick ahead of us.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Southside

No. It's a deep draft we might get 3 really good players. Another loss or 2 down the stretch would have been OK though.

3 really good players would be amazing, but unlikely

[T@T]

All this conjecture on who to pick at #6, I have doubts we'll be picking there.

[Loyal and True]

I am hoping Cgy has #6, #21 and #30. Then I could see a few options to trade up, but I am not sure if it is worth it.

TB could trade #3 and #33 for three first rounders #6, #21 and #30.

I have no doubt that Carolina would trade #5 and #35 for three first rounders #6, #21 and #30. That's not worth it in my opinion.

Nsh would likely trade #4 (they have no other picks in first 2 rounds) for three first rounders #6, #21 and #30

To be honest, I might prefer to keep 3 picks and hope that #6 (in particular) ends up being a very good player. Then see how the other 2 first rounders develop.

[Vinny01]

I don't see how Tampa doesn't keep that pick and take Drouin. He and Stamkos have potential to be a legendary combo. I think that pick would be untouchable

If Drouin goes in the top 2 Barkov would be a nice fit as a 2nd line C behind Stamkos

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Are you the same guy that argued that Brodie is a bruiser and that Tanguay is not soft???

to play 48 games taking 1 minor penalty means that he is soft... full stop.

Hayley Wickenheiser had 22 PIM playing in European men's leagues.

Logan Couture had 2 penalties in 48 games this year- is he soft ?