[Trade] Flames aquire Knight from FLA (Report: to sign 2 year deal)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SebC

Edit: says here that NCAA doesn't need an age factor because most are out of their biggest developmental years by the time they reach the NHL. You disagree?

It also says that the NCAA doesn't need an age factor because NCAA players would lose their eligibility by opting into the draft, and therefore don't get drafted until age 21 or 22. This is a load of horse pucky. I would be mildly suspicious of the site's projections on NCAA players because of that.

On the other hand, NCAA players often don't come straight out of high school. A lot of them do what Jankowski planned, and spend some time in the USHL or a comparable league before they make the jump to college. I believe there are not many 18-year-olds playing hockey in the principal NCAA conferences. Physical maturity is much less of an issue than it is in junior.

So the site could be right about not needing an age adjustment for NCAA players, but not for the reason they gave.

[StrykerSteve]

http://cflam.es/1015cEK

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It also says that the NCAA doesn't need an age factor because NCAA players would lose their eligibility by opting into the draft, and therefore don't get drafted until age 21 or 22. This is a load of horse pucky. I would be mildly suspicious of the site's projections on NCAA players because of that.

On the other hand, NCAA players often don't come straight out of high school. A lot of them do what Jankowski planned, and spend some time in the USHL or a comparable league before they make the jump to college. I believe there are not many 18-year-olds playing hockey in the principal NCAA conferences. Physical maturity is much less of an issue than it is in junior.

So the site could be right about not needing an age adjustment for NCAA players, but not for the reason they gave.

Not sure but the flames have at least five that started at 18, 2 of which that just turned 18 at school start.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by T@T

Not sure but the flames have at least five that started at 18, 2 of which that just turned 18 at school start.

True. The players most likely to jump to the NCAA at 18 are also likely to be drafted by NHL teams, and for the same reasons. I am told by people who know that undrafted players often defer their college eligibility by a year.

[The Voice of Reason]

I didn't mean it to be a negative, it was just something that stood out to me while I listened.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

From my point of view, moving forward, we likely have the following spots filled with young players

not filled-not filled-not filled
Baertschi-Jankowski-Gaudreau
Backlund-Knight-not filled
Horak-Reinhart-Bouma

Brodie-not filled
not filled-not filled
Wotherspoon-Sieloff
Breen

Gillies/Ortio/Brossoit (all maybes)

I know some might question Sven being on the 2nd line, but I figure that we need star players on our first line to be a contender, and while Sven is really good, I don't know if he is that good.

Biggest problem with that roster is that the spots filled are all extremely soft players of the most part. we need either the biggest meanest first line ever, or some better size depth transferred throughout the lineup. Why I could see the flames giving up a hefty ransom to move up for Barkov down the middle.

[Enoch Root]

To those saying a 4th rounder was a lot to give up: I agree that if all they did was acquire his rights to talk, that would be a lot and should have been a conditional pick.

However, Feaster said they have been talking for 10 days and have a deal in place. So it looks like the 4th is compensation for the actual player, (along with the Flames playing nice and Knight being straight-forward with Florida, allowing them to be compensated).

That being the case, this trade is outstanding! An absolute bargain.

6'2" 200 lb C
shoots right
is a pesky, two-way player who gets in your face, is hard to play against, kills penalties, and plays all aspects of the game
led the NCAA in face-offs and had the 3rd most FO wins in Sioux history (includes Toews, among others)

Are you kidding me? If he were in this year's draft, you're probably looking at a late-first pick. Not quite the upside of most of the first-rounders, but a solid safe pick (due to development and a very high probability of being an NHLer)

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Biggest problem with that roster is that the spots filled are all extremely soft players of the most part. we need either the biggest meanest first line ever, or some better size depth transferred throughout the lineup. Why I could see the flames giving up a hefty ransom to move up for Barkov down the middle.

That's actually why I don't think Gaudreau, Backlund, and maybe Sven himself will be long term pieces, but rather guys that you can build value around and then move for a greater return.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Biggest problem with that roster is that the spots filled are all extremely soft players of the most part. we need either the biggest meanest first line ever, or some better size depth transferred throughout the lineup. Why I could see the flames giving up a hefty ransom to move up for Barkov down the middle.

I agree that the Flames need size and grit. But I am not sure how much I would pay to move up for Barkov.

Monahan 6'2"
Jankowski 6'3"
Knight 6'2"
Reinhart 6'1"

All of them play with grit, except Jankowski (though it's a bit early to gauge how physical he will be)

[C_of_Red28]

Love this pick up.. Can't go wrong with a 4th for this guy. Hopefully we can get ink to paper soon

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree that the Flames need size and grit. But I am not sure how much I would pay to move up for Barkov.

Monahan 6'2"
Jankowski 6'3"
Knight 6'2"
Reinhart 6'1"

All of them play with grit, except Jankowski (though it's a bit early to gauge how physical he will be)

monahan has the size but i think it is worth moving up two spots for a guy that looks like a bonafied #1 in Barkov vs a 1b/2 guy(projected) in monahan.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

From my point of view, moving forward, we likely have the following spots filled with young players

not filled-not filled-not filled
Baertschi-Jankowski-Gaudreau
Backlund-Knight-not filled
Horak-Reinhart-Bouma

Brodie-not filled
not filled-not filled
Wotherspoon-Sieloff
Breen

Gillies/Ortio/Brossoit (all maybes)

I know some might question Sven being on the 2nd line, but I figure that we need star players on our first line to be a contender, and while Sven is really good, I don't know if he is that good.

I was starting to see Wotherspoon as a second pairing guy based on the second half of his season starting at the WJC, not immediately obviously, but eventually. Did I totally blow that projection?

[djsFlames]

I think Gaudreau will be our modern day version of Theo... call me nuts.

That kid has true talent. I don't think he's going anywhere. Sven, because of his nature of game, (purely offensive, but could change) I could see maybe being built up for value then dealt down the road, though. Although he's a huge part of the solution in the immediate future (2-3 years).

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by nik-

I was starting to see Wotherspoon as a second pairing guy based on the second half of his season starting at the WJC, not immediately obviously, but eventually. Did I totally blow that projection?

I don't think so. I definitely see top four written all over this guy.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree that the Flames need size and grit. But I am not sure how much I would pay to move up for Barkov.

Monahan 6'2"
Jankowski 6'3"
Knight 6'2"
Reinhart 6'1"

All of them play with grit, except Jankowski (though it's a bit early to gauge how physical he will be)

That is really the big question - how much of a difference in value is Barkov from Monahan? Sounds like Barkov is definitely the better prospect, but Monahan could also have some untapped potential there as well playing with a horrible supporting cast on his team. I sometimes wish the Flames move up and snatch Barkov, and sometimes think it is wiser to just pick Monahan.

If they are both gone, I would actually prefer Nichushkin afterwards. Huge RW with skill and speed, and try and move up with the 22 and 28 to nab someone like Lazar, Horvat or Domi (I like Domi, and he plays like he is a big player, but I would prefer larger centers down the middle).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I think Gaudreau will be our modern day version of Theo... call me nuts.

That kid has true talent. I don't think he's going anywhere. Sven, because of his nature of game, (purely offensive, but could change) I could see maybe being built up for value then dealt down the road, though. Although he's a huge part of the solution in the immediate future (2-3 years).

Johnny doesn't have the massive chip on his shoulder that helped Theo succeed. He's not going to be another Theo imo.

[drPepper1]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I think Gaudreau will be our modern day version of Theo... call me nuts.

That kid has true talent. I don't think he's going anywhere. Sven, because of his nature of game, (purely offensive, but could change) I could see maybe being built up for value then dealt down the road, though. Although he's a huge part of the solution in the immediate future (2-3 years).

minus the demons i hope

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by nik-

Johnny doesn't have the massive chip on his shoulder that helped Theo succeed. He's not going to be another Theo imo.

Agreed. He is much closer to a MSL player than Fleury.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

From my point of view, moving forward, we likely have the following spots filled with young players

not filled-not filled-not filled
Baertschi-Jankowski-Gaudreau
Backlund-Knight-not filled
Horak-Reinhart-Bouma

Brodie-not filled
not filled-not filled
Wotherspoon-Sieloff
Breen

Gillies/Ortio/Brossoit (all maybes)

I know some might question Sven being on the 2nd line, but I figure that we need star players on our first line to be a contender, and while Sven is really good, I don't know if he is that good.

1) Baertschi definitely looks like more of a first line talent. You've also short changed Backlund. He developed very well this year.

2) Judging defencemen is difficult. Any of those guys you listed could become #2-4 guys.

3) Even the guys you listed are all unlikely to reach their potential. But we are bound to luck out with other prospects like Hankowski, Cundari, etc.. That's the benefit to having prospect depth.

4) You don't need a top line consisted of 3 bonafide #1 line players. Very few rosters do. Look at Vancouver...it's Sedin-Sedin-whoever. Look at Boston, arguably the best team in the NHL right now: They essentially have a top line full of second liners that step up when needed.

5) We can acquire players through free agency. Especially second line wingers, second pairing d-men etc...


The Flames are missing the big pieces right now. #1 centre. #1 defenceman. #1 goalie. Our success in the future will depend on our ability to fill those roles. #1 centres are easier to predict and normally acquired via draft in the top of the draft. #1 d-men are less easy to predict and are also normally acquired via draft, but can come from later in the draft. #1 goalies are very unpredictable and come from all over. Lundqvist, one of the very few consistent #1s, was drafted in the 7th round.

Basically, what I am saying is all we can really do is draft a #1 centre. Develop our defencemen and hope that we find a goalie from our group. Stock up on prospects and not worry too much about the rest. The Flames have more pieces than people think. We just need the right ones.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

monahan has the size but i think it is worth moving up two spots for a guy that looks like a bonafied #1 in Barkov vs a 1b/2 guy(projected) in monahan.

But it depends on the price, which would likely be very steep - probably too steep IMO.

I think the difference between Monahan and Barkov is a lot less than some people are making it out to be. Sure, there is a difference now, but the question is: how much more likely is Barkov to be the better player? Statistically, it likely isn't worth the price.