[Rumour] Flames willing to move #6 pick for top D or #1 center

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by nik-

Moneyball is valid in Baseball since it's basically a 1 on 1 game. Hockey isn't. I hate when people reference moneyball like it will work in Hockey.

Well, in hockey it's a fantastic took to be used with actually watching games.

But yeah, in Baseball they seemed to use it soley.

[nik-]

PUCKS seems like something where they can go back and break down shifts of players on their roster, which is great. It's the Moneyball references I've seen attached to it (which I don't think was from the Flames) which annoy me.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by nik-

PUCKS seems like something where they can go back and break down shifts of players on their roster, which is great. It's the Moneyball references I've seen attached to it (which I don't think was from the Flames) which annoy me.

Yeah, moneyball has nothing to do with Pucks. The NFL uses the pucks system and i am pretty sure that is where it was taken from. Don't think the NFL calls it "pucks".

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

Holy #### you guys, he was joking.

You never know on the internet. This could be one of those classic "cry for help" situations. Wouldn't you just feel terrible if he was serious and you ignored it?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

You never know on the internet. This could be one of those classic "cry for help" situations. Wouldn't you just feel terrible if he was serious and you ignored it?

No

[VictoryJuice]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

You never know on the internet. This could be one of those classic "cry for help" situations. Wouldn't you just feel terrible if he was serious and you ignored it?

Haha Im kidding.... maybe. Have a good long weekend. Sing o Canada frigging hard wherever you are

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

If I am understanding Mike F correctly, his point is not that you can't find good or even star players at 6, it is that in terms of reliably drafting top end talent, the 6th position is closer to 10th than it is to 3rd and people are talking about 6th overall like it is as valuable as a top 3 pick just because this is a deep draft.

What is wrong with the logic that says the 6th overall in a deep year is much more like the 3rd overall in a weak year?

I've seen some quotes recently that Monahan would've gone #1 in the last 3 drafts. And he's ranked in the 6-8 range by most.

Seems clear to me that comparing our pick to #6 picks in weak draft years doesn't make much sense.

[calgarywinning]

I really just think Falclore (username) has joined CP to troll the forums. He probably, in his troll like form won't post anything. And also, Good luck to YYC in the draft.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What is wrong with the logic that says the 6th overall in a deep year is much more like the 3rd overall in a weak year?

I've seen some quotes recently that Monahan would've gone #1 in the last 3 drafts. And he's ranked in the 6-8 range by most.

Seems clear to me that comparing our pick to #6 picks in weak draft years doesn't make much sense.

Agree with this - though I only read a couple of places where some felt Monahan and Lindholm would 'arguably' be in the same conversations as Yakupov.

From what I have read:

Jones, MacKinnon, Drouin are clear 'better #1s than the last 3 years".
Barkov and Nichushkin are 'probably better'.
Monahan and Lindholm are in the same conversations.

However, your point does stand, and I think up until the 7th pick, something has to go 'wrong' on the development side of things in order for one of these picks not to become an 'impact player' in the NHL. They will not all necessarily become elite, but I strongly feel they will all become solid players.

This is what makes it such a good draft this year, as well as some scouts saying there is still plenty of 1st round talent available deep in the 2nd round. It is a high-end draft, and it is a deep draft. Truly a special draft class.

I 100% agree that you can't compare pick-by-pick from one year to another. You have to compare the quality of the prospects. To emphasize that point in a super-######ed way of looking at it - who would argue that the Lemieux, Lindros or Crosby years = this year for the first overall selection? Think MacKinnon could get the package that Lindros was offered (or even the other rumored packages that were turned down?). Of course not. Same goes for the other picks. There is a reason why this draft year is heralded as having exceptional talent at the top end - and pick #6 (though just past the 'drop-off') has talks of prospects that would at least be in the conversations in the first 3 picks of the last couple of years. Nothing wrong with saying that I think.

[Tinordi]

There are no shortcuts

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well this is one of the guys giving Feaster advice.

Yes, ONE of them. Feaster isn't making decisions solely on statistical analysis and Snow isn't the only guy he's getting advice from. If you had to guess how much the statistical analysis factors in vs actual scouting what would you say?

Would you prefer the Flames completely avoided statistical analysis and video scouting? Seems like they are smart to get the most information they can in order to make informed decisions.

I think the internet gurus who rely completely on advanced statistical analysis and very little on watching the players play are out to lunch. But ignoring it completely seems pretty silly.

Paranoia is right. Since when is more information to base a decision on a bad thing? Some of you guys complain about the silliest things.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What is wrong with the logic that says the 6th overall in a deep year is much more like the 3rd overall in a weak year?

I've seen some quotes recently that Monahan would've gone #1 in the last 3 drafts. And he's ranked in the 6-8 range by most.

Seems clear to me that comparing our pick to #6 picks in weak draft years doesn't make much sense.

I listed 32 years worth of drafts, which will include the strong with the week, and thus guys who went at 6 in their year that would have gone higher other years.

Monahan could be the next Forsberg, or the next Gilbert Brule.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What is wrong with the logic that says the 6th overall in a deep year is much more like the 3rd overall in a weak year?

I've seen some quotes recently that Monahan would've gone #1 in the last 3 drafts. And he's ranked in the 6-8 range by most.

Seems clear to me that comparing our pick to #6 picks in weak draft years doesn't make much sense.

We are getting too bogged down in the numbers (my fault). The important thing to me is where the elite guys are cut off. Last year it seemed to be after 3, this year it is 4 or maybe 5 if you include Nichushkin. I consider the difference between 4 and 6 to be significant enough that the pick goes from untradeable to "only trade for a top player". I find it interesting that people disagree, but I think the last 32 years indicates that a lot of mistakes are made just outside that elite group.

It is great that we have six and hopefully Monahan will pan out, unless the Oilers draft him, but the risk that he or Lindholm won't seems real enough to me that it is much easier to consider trading the pick than if it were 4.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

We are getting too bogged down in the numbers (my fault). The important thing to me is where the elite guys are cut off. Last year it seemed to be after 3, this year it is 4 or maybe 5 if you include Nichushkin. I consider the difference between 4 and 6 to be significant enough that the pick goes from untradeable to "only trade for a top player". I find it interesting that people disagree, but I think the last 32 years indicates that a lot of mistakes are made just outside that elite group.

http://pmd.fan960.com/audio_on_deman...-Interview.mp3

There's Button saying the top end might be 8-9 deep for the Flames and not the 4-6 they thought at one point.

But I definitely agree with you that the likely top 4 are the most attractive by far and that if were guaranteed 1 of Barkov, Mac, Drouin or Jones then we'd be far less likely to move the pick.

Interesting that Todd Button hinted in some interview or article that someone we're not talking about as top 4-5 may sneak in there. I wonder if they have any good intel on that. And who the heck is he talking about? Bob Mackenzie's ranking of Lindholm at #5 ahead of Nichushkin seems pretty telling that a lot of scouts have Lindholm pretty high.

And who the heck else might be in their top 8-9? Nurse? Horvat? Ristolainen? Zadorov? Shinkaruk? Domi? Kind of doubt we'd take Domi with our first pick given his size and our size issues. Could see them trying to package up #22 and #28 to try and land players along those lines in the early teens.

[Ryan Coke]

I wonder if the Flames really like Horvat, or at least if it is he who Button might be alluding to.

Might also explain why there seems a bit of openness to moving down a couple of spots. It's possible they see Horvat as the same level as Monahan and Lindholm.

[TKB]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

We are getting too bogged down in the numbers (my fault). The important thing to me is where the elite guys are cut off. Last year it seemed to be after 3, this year it is 4 or maybe 5 if you include Nichushkin. I consider the difference between 4 and 6 to be significant enough that the pick goes from untradeable to "only trade for a top player". I find it interesting that people disagree, but I think the last 32 years indicates that a lot of mistakes are made just outside that elite group.

It is great that we have six and hopefully Monahan will pan out, unless the Oilers draft him, but the risk that he or Lindholm won't seems real enough to me that it is much easier to consider trading the pick than if it were 4.

I agree with you 100%. It looks like the top 4 will all be very good nhlers. After that its hard to say what these guys will turn out to be like. I don't buy for a second that Monahan would of went first overall the last three years for a second.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I wonder if the Flames really like Horvat, or at least if it is he who Button might be alluding to.

Might also explain why there seems a bit of openness to moving down a couple of spots. It's possible they see Horvat as the same level as Monahan and Lindholm.

I saw a clip on TSN this morning in which Pierre Mcguire called Bo Horvat the potential "steal" of the 2013 draft. I think that if the Flames are targeting a player between 8–15 that they have their eyes set on Horvat or Domi.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by RT14

I was just pondering the idea of #6 + #22 (or 28) for #8 + #16 to myself an hour ago. I'm just starting to get the feeling the Flames might be after Shinkaruk or Horvat and probably would think they can get either at 8, so would love to move up to 16 with one of the other picks.

Pure speculation but interesting to see rumors out of Buf that may lend some credence to my thought.

[Edit] To be clear, not sure I like the idea or not, think I'd rather Lindholm or Monahan, but not totally against it either.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen either. I think Buffalo wants to grab Adam Erne, but that 16 is a little early to do so and he'd still be available at 22.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I saw a clip on TSN this morning in which Pierre Mcguire called Bo Horvat the potential "steal" of the 2013 draft. I think that if the Flames are targeting a player between 8–15 that they have their eyes set on Horvat or Domi.

I saw that also, and Peter Loubardias picked Horvat for the Flames at number six in the Fan960 Mock Draft.

In that same report I was annoyed by Ray Ferraro saying "the Flames cupboard is bare". The cupboard may not have depth, but it's not bare.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I saw that also, and Peter Loubardias picked Horvat for the Flames at number six in the Fan960 Mock Draft.

In that same report I was annoyed by Ray Ferraro saying "the Flames cupboard is bare". The cupboard may not have depth, but it's not bare.

Meh, it's pretty bare, especially for a team that's missed the playoffs 4 years in a row.

Any Horvat at 6 talks is horrifying, luckily, that was just Lubo's bias. Hopefully no inside info there.