The Flames and Oilers rebuilds similar beginings

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

My point is that I don't think the Flames will be bad enough to finish last, it's basically a roll of the dice either way, you really don't know how good and bad other teams will be. Couple that with the new draft lottery system and even if you finish last the odds are that you will NOT pick last. You only have a 25% chance of winning the lottery as the last place team.

So, since the 2011-12 season, the Flames have lost four of their five top producers (Iginla, Jokinen, Tanguay and Bouwmeester), their number one defenseman (Bouwmeester), their best leader on the blueline (Sarich), and their starting goaltender (Kiprusoff). They have been replaced by guys that have a reputation of being tough to play against (Jones, Galiardi, and O'Brien), but not overly talented, a career backup goaltender (MacDonald), a couple of untested and unproven European goaltenders (Ramo and Berra), and an untested college player (Knight). You don't think this is step down toward the bottom?

Please get this through your head, my point is two-fold:

Odds are the Flames will not get one let alone two #1 overall draft picks over the next two years.

If the Flames finish dead last I like their odds. The odds are highly in the team's favor. Even if they do not get that first overall pick they are assured of getting a player likely as good or possibly better than the Oilers players, especially based on team needs.

Odds are the Flames will be better than the Oilers over the past 3 years.

How so? You name find me two rosters worse than the Calgary Flames. This is a team without a number one or number two center. There is no proven scorer that can be relied upon as the go-to guy. The Flames have a brutal defense. Brodie is the best we have and he is not going to carry the mail by himself. The goaltending picture is as clouded as any team I've ever seen. The possibilities are there for a good team a few years, but this year is going to be brutal this year, and as Stajan, Cammalleri and Stempniak are moved out for draft picks/prospects the team will be that much worse in 2014-15. They will be bottom of the league and will have a top three pick at worst in the next two or three drafts.

Which means that the Flames will need to have better depth, scouting and development to match the Oiler's high picks in the past three years.

The Flames already have better depth, but they need to have it develop, and that is going to take a couple of years. If the Flames are smart, Monahan will be back in junior after his try out. Wotherspoon and Sieloff will be AHL bound for some seasoning. All three of those players may make their full time appearance in 2014-15, but that will be a year of them adjusting to the league. This team doesn't turn the corner until 2015-16 when their good young prospects have had a chance to step in and get their feet wet. That is two definite bottom of the league years with a potential third in 15-16. That is three more top end talents to the mix that have the potential to be as good or better. With the planets aligning in 2014-15 the Flames still have probably the best chance of any team at McDavid. He alone could tilt the balance.

Why is this basic idea failing you?

Even though I'm a bonehead and misinterpreted the draft odds, its because it is flawed in so many ways. The Flames were a bottom of the heap team last year and got substantially worse this off season. They are going to get even worse as three more veterans exit. This team is on a downward slope and there is nothing to stop it. Sigh.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Trading down to acquire a high pick AND another NHL ready body for Yakupov was always the right move, and showed an incredible lack of hockey IQ when they didnt do it.

talk about minimizing risks...that ^^^ deal is a minimal risk compared to taking an enigmatic though supremely talented Russian, when your team has glaring needs everywhere except the position he plays.

It was a dumb dumb move last year, it is this year and will still be a dumb move in 10 years, regardless of how Yakupov progresses.

Recent examples of trading down from the First Overall Draft pick (underlined players were unselected draft picks at the time of the trade):

1998:
San Jose traded the pick to Florida for Viktor Kozlov and Jaroslav Spacek.
Florida traded the pick to Tampa Bay for Bryan Marchment, David Shaw and David Legwand
Tampa drafted Vincent Lecavalier

Winner: Tampa

1999:
Tampa traded the pick to Vancouver for Pavel Brendl, Brett Scheffelmaier and Jimmie Olvestad
Vancouver traded the pick to Atlanta for Daniel Sedin and Max Birbraer
Atlanta drafted Patrik Stefan

Winner: Vancouver

2002:
Florida traded the pick to Columbus for Jay Bouwmeester
Columbus drafted Rick Nash

Winner: Columbus(?) see note 1.

2003:
Florida traded the pick and Dan Carcillo (!) to Pittsburgh for Nathan Horton and Stefan Meyer
Pittsburgh drafted Marc-Andre Fleury

Winner: Pittsburgh(?) see note 2.

-----

Back to the original quote, the idea that a 1st overall draft pick gets traded for a "NHL ready body" is almost non-existent within recent history of the NHL. The only time it has happened was the Vincent Lecavalier trade and the pick that eventually because the first overall was traded twice during the season, before it was known that the pick would be the 1st overall.

There is basically no precedent for trading a first overall pick for a NHL regular. Without having at least one example of a team making that trade, it's hard to gauge what sort of value would have been required to convince any team to trade their 1st overall pick for a NHL regular (or a combination of NHL regulars).

Trading Yakupov for a NHL regular might have been the right move, but it takes two to tango and it seems as though no team has been able to agree to the asking price of a 1st overall pick (with respect to NHL regulars).

-----

1. I picked Columbus because Rick Nash is big, plays center and scores goals. It doesn't hurt that Columbus got some nice assets that have helped make their team better when they traded Rick Nash to New York. Florida got Josh Birkholz and the negotiating rights to Jordan Leopold (who they eventually signed him but not until free agency began. And he signed a one year deal. And he was traded at the deadline for a pick that became Connor Brickley. Great asset management on display here.).

2. Florida had a young Luongo between the pipes in the season before and after this draft, which sort of explains why they didn't want to draft MAF. That doesn't explain why they didn't draft Eric Staal with their pick. Florida got a 5 years out of Horton (without a single playoff game) before trading him for Dennis Wideman and a pick that became Nick Bjugstad. Florida got 61 games of Wideman before shipping off for a 3rd round pick in 2011 (Jonathan Racine). So to recap the only assets Florida remains with from this trade are Nick Bjugstad, Jonathan Racine and some nice action shots of Nathan Horton in their old media guides. Pittsburgh on the other hand won a Stanley Cup despite MAF's best efforts between the pipes. I think the point here is Pittsburgh won a championship and Florida wrote another chapter in their on-going book series "How to manage your NHL team poorly", hence why I picked Pittsburgh as the winner of this trade. Thinking there was no winner in this trade would also be a completely acceptable opinion with me.

[Robbob]

Wasn't Ottawa involded in a couple trades with first overalls. I vaguely remember a Redden/Berrard swap as well as a Yashin for Spezza. Granted Milbury was at the helm each time and that skews things.

[Tinordi]

On the draft you have a 75% chance of winning the lottery too, which is 3 times better than your odds of losing. I'll take the 75% chance over your 25% any day.

By my understanding if you finish last you have a 25% chance of winning the lottery.

So lets run the odds, lets say that it's a crap shoot over who actually finishes last between four teams. Lets give it equal odds to finish last at 25%.

The chances then of picking the number 1 overall two years in a row would be:

.25 x .25 x .25 x .25 = 0.3% chance you're going to pick the first overall two years in a row.

Ok, you say, maybe it's only a toss up between two teams, say the Flames and the worst team in the east? What're the odds of picking first overall twice then? 1.5%


I mean sure maybe we'll get lucky in the next two draft years and there wont be a consensus #1 guy, the top 3 prospects are more or less in the same ball park. That could be so. Lets take a look back and see where there isn't alot of differentiation between the #1 and #3 picks.

Starting in 2010 because we can evaluate them:

2010 Hall, Seguin, Gunbradson - Hall's the clear #1 guy here
2009 Tavares, Hedman, Duchene - Tavares clear
2008 Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian - Stamkos
2007 Kane, JVR, Turris - Kane
2006 Johnson, Staal, Toews - Ok here's one
2005 Crosby, Ryan, Johnson - Yeah
2004 Ovechkin, Malkin, Barker - Interesting don't want to be third
2003 Fleury, Staal, Horton - Here's another one
2002 Nash, Lehtonen, Bouw - Nash is better IMO
2001 Kovalchuk, Spezza, Svitov - Close by Kovalchuk was the clear guy

The point is that the #1 pick is usually the best pick to have, as the Oilers have done in the past 3 years. Jury's still out on 2011 and 2012 so maybe they didn't get the best guys. But the odds would say that they have.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Wasn't Ottawa involded in a couple trades with first overalls. I vaguely remember a Redden/Berrard swap as well as a Yashin for Spezza. Granted Milbury was at the helm each time and that skews things.

The Redden Berrard swap happened about 9 months after Ottawa had picked Berrard and the Islanders had selected Redden. Berrard didn't want to sign with the Senators, and I believe the Senators axed their GM mid season and a new guy came aboard so they made a deal with the Islanders involving Redden. I actually think that was pre-Milbury.

The Spezza deal involved the #2 pick, Chara, and the legendary Bill Muckalt going to the Senators for Yashin. Yashin himself being a former #2 pick.

[Tinordi]

Good post Voice Of Reason, points out just how absurd it is to suggest that the Oil should have just easily traded away the first overall to fill "organizational need" as if goalscoring isn't THE organizational need of every team in the league and the hardest need to come by. Those types of transactions are exceedingly rare and only in the mind of the rivals desperate to find any fault should they have traded the #1 pick in a draft year when there was a clear consensus guy to go first.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Wasn't Ottawa involded in a couple trades with first overalls. I vaguely remember a Redden/Berrard swap as well as a Yashin for Spezza. Granted Milbury was at the helm each time and that skews things.

There are almost certainly some trades pre-1998 that I have missed. I listed all the trades I could find this afternoon with some quick google-ing. On the specific topic of Redden/Berrard, Redden was a 2nd overall pick that was traded for Berrard (the 1st overall pick). However that trade was completed months after the picks were made and it became clear that Ottawa was going to be unable to sign Berrard.

Yashin and Spezza were 2nd overall picks (1992 and 2001, respectively). The pick used to draft Spezza was traded for a previous 2nd overall (Yashin), but that was nearly a decade after Yashin was drafted 1st overall. So not really related to trading a first overall pick before the pick is used.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The chances then of picking the number 1 overall two years in a row would be:

.25 x .25 x .25 x .25 = 0.3% chance you're going to pick the first overall two years in a row.

Ow. The wrong, it hurts.

There are 14 teams eligible for the draft lottery every year, and it is certain that one of them will win. That means that the average chance of picking first overall, if you miss the playoffs twice running, is (1/14)^2 = 0.51%. (That assumes that you are equally likely to finish anywhere from 17th to 30th.)

If you're finishing in the bottom four each of those years, you have a much better than average chance of winning the lottery each time. Ergo, your overall chance of winning twice is greater than 0.51%.

You forgot to account for the odds that the team does NOT finish last overall, but wins the lottery anyway.

That said, New Era is even more out to lunch when he claims that the last-place team has a 75% chance of winning the lottery. That's not only wrong, you don't even have to do arithmetic to prove it.

*grumbles, goes away to find some ibuprofen*

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Good post Voice Of Reason, points out just how absurd it is to suggest that the Oil should have just easily traded away the first overall to fill "organizational need" as if goalscoring isn't THE organizational need of every team in the league and the hardest need to come by. Those types of transactions are exceedingly rare and only in the mind of the rivals desperate to find any fault should they have traded the #1 pick in a draft year when there was a clear consensus guy to go first.

I'm not interested in defending the Oilers. I only wanted to point out that suggesting "you should have traded that 1st overall pick for NHL players + picks/prospects" is, as far as I can tell, complete fantasy. That goes for any recent 1st overall pick. That goes for future first overall picks as well, regardless of what team holds that pick.

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Meers

Today's model for success with a complete rebuild is Chicago during the half decade from 02/03 to 07/08 when they missed the playoffs.

Ideally, I'd rather have Feaster looking to the Windy City rather than Calgary's neighbor to the North for a blueprint.

Accordingly, I think the pertinent question is not how the Flames' rebuild compares with the Oilers'. Rather the question should be whether the Flames are where the Blackhawks were four years into their rebuild?

When you look at how Chicago rebuilt from 02/03 to 07/08 and put in place the key players for it's 2010 Cup win, a few things become clear:

Players Drafted

Keith 02 - 54th
Seabrook 03 - 14th
Byfuglien 03 - 245th
Bolland 04 - 32nd
Bickell 04 - 41st
Brouwer 04 - 214th
Hjalmarsson 05 - 108th
Toews 06 - 3rd
Kane 07 - 1st

Players Acquired in Trades

Sharp 05/06
Versteeg 06/07
Havlat 06/07
Ladd 07/08

Free Agents

Niemi 08/09
Campbell 08/09
Hossa 09/10

Firstly, the Hawks' draft picks were the most vital element to their Cup success. But, aside from Toews and Kane, many of these players were not high draft picks. Chicago did very well with their drafting in the late first round and subsequent rounds to find key talent and role players. So scouting junior talent is key. Secondly, Chicago was active in the trade market and able to bring in talent via trades. Finally, top end free agents like Hossa and Campbell were added after the rebuild had been largely completed to push an already solid team over the top.

So, are the Flames where the Blackhawks were four years into their rebuild?

The answer, to my mind, is . . . probably not. I can't quite see Monahan being the next Toews. But, more importantly, I don't see a Norris calibre Keith/Seabrook-type blue line pairing slowly honing their craft on the Flames, or a serviceable monster like Byfuglien on the squad, or an emerging checking centre like Bolland developing, or a quality second-liner like Sharp having been brought aboard.

The Hawks managed to accumulate quite a bit of talent during their first four years wandering the non-playoff wilderness. The Flames, sadly squandered some of their years of suckage - and not having any first or second rounders in the 2010 draft certainly didn't help.

Ah well, as a famous American advice columnist once said, "It gets better."

(Unfortunately, that author also assumed that the advice recipient would be repeatedly sodomized for years on end . . . which, sadly, is how the next few seasons of Flames hockey are shaping up.)

Well if the stars align at least our core is starting to shape up a bit. Here's what we've got so far:

Notes:

Ranking:
-A-90% chance of filling out role B-75% C-50% D-25%
-C's are only about a 50% chance, lots of these guys won't turn out.
-Bottom of the lineup players are graded more leniently because they are more likely to be able to play acceptably well in that role. (Cundari gets a B for bottom pairing but gets an F if he were to be slotted into the top pairing.)

Comparables:
I am not saying that any/all of our guys will turn out to be players of kane/hossa/toews stature. I'm just saying that some of our guys could, if all goes perfectly, provide similar services to this team. (Hell, if the stars align then maybe some of our guys will turn out even better!)

__________________________________________________ _______________________

Beartschi[A](Hossa)-Monahan[B-](Toews)-Gaudreau[C-](Kane)*
Klimchuck[C+]-Janko[C]/Monahan[A]-Poirier[C+]/Gaudreau[B-]
Horak[B+]-Backlund[A]/Knight[B]-________
[4th line is easy to fill, plenty of prospects can reach this level. Bouma gets a B+ here though]

(One of Seiloff/Brodie /Wotherspoon)[C-]-___________
Brodie[A]-Wotherspoon[B+]/Seiloff[B-]
Cundari[B+]-Ramage/Breen[B]

Starter:Gillies[C+]
Back-up: Brossoit[B+]

*Gaudreau played on Monahan's right wing during the scrimmages. At the very least he's open to it.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

So that looks like a pretty good team on paper. The top defensive pairing, the second line and Gaudreau are all real question marks though. When you factor in that some prospects will fail it still doesn't look that bad aside from the gaping hole in our defenses top pairing, something this years pick should hopefully help. In addition to all that we still have plenty of NHL caliber prospects in our farm system:

Max Reinhart-(2nd line C/3rd line B+)
Markus Granlund-(2nd line C or bust)
Ken Agostino-(2nd line C-/3rd line B-)
Bill Arnold -(I personally don't know enough about this player for rankings to mean anything.)
Mark Cundari-(C- for top 4/B+ for bottom pairing)
Ben Hanowski-(C+ for 3rd line/B+ for fourth, thinks the game well which is worth a lot.)
Joni Ortio -(I don't really know this guy. No ranking)
Keegan Kanzig-(Wildcard. This guy is big and thinks the game well, two important things that can't be taught. He is mediocre at skating and has hands of stone, two important things that can be taught. I could see this guy surprise everyone and end up a solid top pairing guy. More likely he just ends up being a hulk on the bottom pairing. Defensemen take a long time to develop; It will be a while before what kind of player he is comes into focus.)
Greg Nemisz-(3rd/4th liner D. His window is closing.)

Some of these guys won't make it, some will. Players that make it from here are very valuable. They can a)be used to fill roster spots or b) be packaged in a trade to fill a roster spot above the line they play on. Two of these players and a late first got the Blues a top pairing guy for five years. They are very important assets and we actually seem to have a lot of them.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Other assets:
We do still have guys on our roster with trade value. As various prospects begin to earn their place on the team it will allow management the luxury of trading our nhl vets for more assets.

__________________________________________________ _______________________

So are we anywhere close to where the Blackhawks were four years into their rebuild? If Gaudreau turns out well and one of Brodie/Sieloff/Wotherspoon blossom into a top pairing guy then I feel like we actually might be. Reason being that we already could have our Patrick Kane-light in Gaudreau! Next draft we take our top pairing defensemen with our high pick and continue to draft well in the later rounds like we have been over the past three drafts and we could have all the assets we need by next year! Any holes in the roster created by busting players could be filled by dealing our assets intelligently and any remaining holes (hopefully only 1-3) could be filled via free agency.

It will still take quite a while for all of these players to make the nhl and it will take even more time for them to become quality nhl players. We probably have 2 more high picks and maybe even one mid round pick to acquire before we're competitive again. If we continue to draft well in the later rounds then we may be set for success for quite a long time.

On the whole, not bad!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

By my understanding if you finish last you have a 25% chance of winning the lottery.

You are right on the lottery. I had misinterpreted an article which gave the impression the remaining teams had the 25% chance of winning the lottery. Order of crow to go please!



Things have definitely changed and the Oilers were exceptionally fortunate to have sucked so hard as when they did. It is unlikely a team will ever get three picks in a row again, no matter how bad they are. Sucks to be a Flames fan, because the next three years are going to be ugly!

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by New Era

You are right on the lottery. I had misinterpreted an article which gave the impression the remaining teams had the 25% chance of winning the lottery. Order of crow to go please!



Things have definitely changed and the Oilers were exceptionally fortunate to have sucked so hard as when they did. It is unlikely a team will ever get three picks in a row again, no matter how bad they are. Sucks to be a Flames fan, because the next three years are going to be ugly!

I really hope that Ramo or berra turns out to be an nhl caliber player. If our goalie can give us a shot to win most nights then it will be bearable. If our boys lose most nights because we don't have a legitimate nhl goaltender in our system than these upcoming years are going to be painful.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Size is a definite difference between the Flames and the Oilers. I really do think that small players can definitely turn into impact players, but too many of them on a team becomes an issue. Some of the Oilers top ranked prospects over their rebuild have been:

Gagner - 5'11"
Cogliano - 5'10"
Brule - 5'10"
Eberle - 5'11"
Omark - 5'10"
Yakupov - 5'10"
Nilsson - 5'10"

That is a lot of players under 6 foot. Taylor Hall and RNH are exactly 6'0" btw.

Contrast that with the Flames:

Gaudreau - 5'8? 5'9"?
Baertschi - 5'11
Klimchuk - 5'11"
Granlund - 5'11"
(I don't think I missed anyone else, have I?)

The rest of the Flames more talented prospects at the forward position are all above 6 feet - Jankowski at 6'3, Monahan at 6'2", Knight at 6'2", Backlund at 6'0", Reinhart at 6'1", Poirier at 6'1", Arnold 6'0" (and built like a brick), etc.

There is good reason why many people think Gaudreau will not become an every day NHL player (though I personally think he will) - and that is because of his size. The Oilers put together a core that was very small - Hall being the only body with size. The Flames look to be putting together a core with size. Oilers had other prospects of size as well - Hartikainen, Vande Velde, and a couple of others - but I am not sure I would really consider them part of the core. Either way, they didn't go on to become impact players. Listing Ferland would be equal I would think to Hartikainen AT THE TIME, and the odds are against either of them being impact players in the NHL. I really just comparing the 'top 6' or what should be the 'core' in terms of size.

Also, where do most people think that the Oilers and the Flames compare? Was drafting Monahan this season equal to the "Hall" year, or was this equal to the Gagner year? I see it as more of the Gagner year, and in which case I STRONGLY feel the Flames are 'ahead' in their rebuild if that is indeed the case. If not, Oilers were ahead at the top end (Hall, Paajarvi, Eberle, Gagner), though the Flames definitely have more depth at this time than the Oilers.

I think any way you slice it, it is difficult to prove one way or another without time. I think this will be one of those threads that will be re-visited years later. Without more Flames prospects actually making the NHL and contributing, there is really no way to 'prove' that the Flames are better at drafting, and thus 'ahead' of the Oilers at the same point in time.

My bet is that the Flames are not as terrible as the Oilers at drafting. The Oilers had way too many misses in the years leading up to their rebuild, and during the rebuild itself. This is why they Oilers are still under-performing.

Size is not everything. However, I can't think of any team in the NHL that has a top 6 that average under 6', and who are successful. Montreal did so for a short time, but are trying to get bigger themselves.

I don't really know what this 'proves', but there is probably at least a slightly larger probability having prospects with size (and who still have skating ability and skill - not just 'big clumsy oafs').

I was a bit concerned after the 2011 draft watching Feaster draft Baertschi, Granlund and Gaudreau. However, he has supplemented that nicely with Janowski, Monahan and Poirier at the higher-end of the subsequent drafts. Oilers just drafted too many small guys throughout their rebuild that slot in their top 6. The 'boom-bust' types.

Maybe the comparison is still rather meaningless, as many prospects that 'should' become NHL players seemingly never make it, while others that are considered long-shots end up being impact players. I guess the next few years will show if indeed the Flames are in a better position now than the Oilers were at the start of their respective rebuilds.

EDIT: All sizes were from http://www.eliteprospects.com. I don't think I missed any of the Oilers top forward prospects. I wasn't as familiar with them as I am with the Flames'. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Size is a definite difference between the Flames and the Oilers. I really do think that small players can definitely turn into impact players, but too many of them on a team becomes an issue. Some of the Oilers top ranked prospects over their rebuild have been:

Gagner - 5'11"
Cogliano - 5'10"
Brule - 5'10"
Eberle - 5'11"
Omark - 5'10"
Yakupov - 5'10"
Nilsson - 5'10"

That is a lot of players under 6 foot. Taylor Hall and RNH are exactly 6'0" btw.

Contrast that with the Flames:

Gaudreau - 5'8? 5'9"?
Baertschi - 5'11
Klimchuk - 5'11"
Granlund - 5'11"
(I don't think I missed anyone else, have I?)

The rest of the Flames more talented prospects at the forward position are all above 6 feet - Jankowski at 6'3, Monahan at 6'2", Knight at 6'2", Backlund at 6'0", Reinhart at 6'1", Poirier at 6'1", Arnold 6'0" (and built like a brick), etc.

There is good reason why many people think Gaudreau will not become an every day NHL player (though I personally think he will) - and that is because of his size. The Oilers put together a core that was very small - Hall being the only body with size. The Flames look to be putting together a core with size. Oilers had other prospects of size as well - Hartikainen, Vande Velde, and a couple of others - but I am not sure I would really consider them part of the core. Either way, they didn't go on to become impact players. Listing Ferland would be equal I would think to Hartikainen AT THE TIME, and the odds are against either of them being impact players in the NHL. I really just comparing the 'top 6' or what should be the 'core' in terms of size.

Also, where do most people think that the Oilers and the Flames compare? Was drafting Monahan this season equal to the "Hall" year, or was this equal to the Gagner year? I see it as more of the Gagner year, and in which case I STRONGLY feel the Flames are 'ahead' in their rebuild if that is indeed the case. If not, Oilers were ahead at the top end (Hall, Paajarvi, Eberle, Gagner), though the Flames definitely have more depth at this time than the Oilers.

I think any way you slice it, it is difficult to prove one way or another without time. I think this will be one of those threads that will be re-visited years later. Without more Flames prospects actually making the NHL and contributing, there is really no way to 'prove' that the Flames are better at drafting, and thus 'ahead' of the Oilers at the same point in time.

My bet is that the Flames are not as terrible as the Oilers at drafting. The Oilers had way too many misses in the years leading up to their rebuild, and during the rebuild itself. This is why they Oilers are still under-performing.

Size is not everything. However, I can't think of any team in the NHL that has a top 6 that average under 6', and who are successful. Montreal did so for a short time, but are trying to get bigger themselves.

I don't really know what this 'proves', but there is probably at least a slightly larger probability having prospects with size (and who still have skating ability and skill - not just 'big clumsy oafs').

I was a bit concerned after the 2011 draft watching Feaster draft Baertschi, Granlund and Gaudreau. However, he has supplemented that nicely with Janowski, Monahan and Poirier at the higher-end of the subsequent drafts. Oilers just drafted too many small guys throughout their rebuild that slot in their top 6. The 'boom-bust' types.

Maybe the comparison is still rather meaningless, as many prospects that 'should' become NHL players seemingly never make it, while others that are considered long-shots end up being impact players. I guess the next few years will show if indeed the Flames are in a better position now than the Oilers were at the start of their respective rebuilds.

EDIT: All sizes were from http://www.eliteprospects.com. I don't think I missed any of the Oilers top forward prospects. I wasn't as familiar with them as I am with the Flames'. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Gaudreau is as sure a thing as being a top-line NHL player not in the NHL as there is outside of maybe Mackinnon. The problem is that the Flames have to be big enough (grit and size) for him to maximize his potential.

To the list of Flames top 3/6 forwards in 3 years you have Baertschi, Grandlund, Klimchuk and you have to add Hudler who has 3 years left on his contract

A successful team like Chicago has one smaller guy in their top 6 - Patrick Kane. LA has Williams as their softest top-6 guy.


Will the Flames be successful with Baertschi and Gaudreau?? That is a bit of a stretch but seems possible...... Grandlund and Klimchuk are good insurance if something goes wrong with the golden 2.... but if nothing happens they will be Byroned * and/or traded...

* moved to the AHL and not given a real chance to prove they are NHL calibre players.

Horak has been adding weight but is also a bit small but may be gritty enough to play on a 3rd line.

Hodgson is obviously a top talent and will be top-6 player for a long time.... a much surer thing than Kassian.... Canucks could not make a small spot for him with the Sedins and Burrows in their top 6 so they traded him for someone who has much less star potential.

Hudler is just taking up a spot.


Small talented guys that are looking for a NHL job - Mason Raymond, Kyle Wellwood, Brunner

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

Recent examples of trading down from the First Overall Draft pick (underlined players were unselected draft picks at the time of the trade):

1998:
San Jose traded the pick to Florida for Viktor Kozlov and Jaroslav Spacek.
Florida traded the pick to Tampa Bay for Bryan Marchment, David Shaw and David Legwand
Tampa drafted Vincent Lecavalier

Winner: Tampa

1999:
Tampa traded the pick to Vancouver for Pavel Brendl, Brett Scheffelmaier and Jimmie Olvestad
Vancouver traded the pick to Atlanta for Daniel Sedin and Max Birbraer
Atlanta drafted Patrik Stefan

Winner: Vancouver

2002:
Florida traded the pick to Columbus for Jay Bouwmeester
Columbus drafted Rick Nash

Winner: Columbus(?) see note 1.

2003:
Florida traded the pick and Dan Carcillo (!) to Pittsburgh for Nathan Horton and Stefan Meyer
Pittsburgh drafted Marc-Andre Fleury

Winner: Pittsburgh(?) see note 2.

-----

Back to the original quote, the idea that a 1st overall draft pick gets traded for a "NHL ready body" is almost non-existent within recent history of the NHL. The only time it has happened was the Vincent Lecavalier trade and the pick that eventually because the first overall was traded twice during the season, before it was known that the pick would be the 1st overall.

There is basically no precedent for trading a first overall pick for a NHL regular. Without having at least one example of a team making that trade, it's hard to gauge what sort of value would have been required to convince any team to trade their 1st overall pick for a NHL regular (or a combination of NHL regulars).

Trading Yakupov for a NHL regular might have been the right move, but it takes two to tango and it seems as though no team has been able to agree to the asking price of a 1st overall pick (with respect to NHL regulars).

-----

1. I picked Columbus because Rick Nash is big, plays center and scores goals. It doesn't hurt that Columbus got some nice assets that have helped make their team better when they traded Rick Nash to New York. Florida got Josh Birkholz and the negotiating rights to Jordan Leopold (who they eventually signed him but not until free agency began. And he signed a one year deal. And he was traded at the deadline for a pick that became Connor Brickley. Great asset management on display here.).

2. Florida had a young Luongo between the pipes in the season before and after this draft, which sort of explains why they didn't want to draft MAF. That doesn't explain why they didn't draft Eric Staal with their pick. Florida got a 5 years out of Horton (without a single playoff game) before trading him for Dennis Wideman and a pick that became Nick Bjugstad. Florida got 61 games of Wideman before shipping off for a 3rd round pick in 2011 (Jonathan Racine). So to recap the only assets Florida remains with from this trade are Nick Bjugstad, Jonathan Racine and some nice action shots of Nathan Horton in their old media guides. Pittsburgh on the other hand won a Stanley Cup despite MAF's best efforts between the pipes. I think the point here is Pittsburgh won a championship and Florida wrote another chapter in their on-going book series "How to manage your NHL team poorly", hence why I picked Pittsburgh as the winner of this trade. Thinking there was no winner in this trade would also be a completely acceptable opinion with me.

Some good points, but think you over-state it a bit.

First, by only looking back to 1998, you miss the era where it was more common (early expansion). You also miss the biggest one - the Lindros trade, where I think everyone would agree that Quebec/Colorado won the trade.

As for needing a dance partner, that is an obvious requirement of any trade, but I think it is misleading to suggest that finding a trading partner would be more difficult in this type of trade (this is directed to other comments, not necessarily the quoted post). I think it is more the case that the team with the pick is leery of moving it - there are usually teams each year that express an interest in trading for it. What they would pay is obviously a factor, but nonetheless...

The team picking first is usually in more or less of a rebuilding position, so it makes sense that they would be reticent to trade the pick. However, the Oilers were in a different position last year (or at least should have been as they already had two 1st overalls and should have been looking more at organization needs).

One example of a possible trading partner would have been Pitt, who had the #8 pick. I would think they would be very interested in acquiring a pure goal scorer and, with multiple quality defensive prospects in their system, could afford to offer decent assets. A good D prospect, plus the #8 pick where they could have acquired one of Reilly, Reinhart or Trouba, depending on how the draft played out, would have made the basis for an excellent return for Edm IMO.

The point being that finding a trading partner for a trade involving the #1 pick is no different, and no more difficult, than finding a trading partner for any other major asset.

Which reminds me, not sure why you kept referring to trading for a current player since no one suggested that.

Anyway, whatever. I believe that the Oilers missed an opportunity that will lengthen their rebuild. But that is just my opinion of course.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Gaudreau is as sure a thing as being a top-line NHL player not in the NHL as there is outside of maybe Mackinnon. The problem is that the Flames have to be big enough (grit and size) for him to maximize his potential.

To the list of Flames top 3/6 forwards in 3 years you have Baertschi, Grandlund, Klimchuk and you have to add Hudler who has 3 years left on his contract

A successful team like Chicago has one smaller guy in their top 6 - Patrick Kane. LA has Williams as their softest top-6 guy.


Will the Flames be successful with Baertschi and Gaudreau?? That is a bit of a stretch but seems possible...... Grandlund and Klimchuk are good insurance if something goes wrong with the golden 2.... but if nothing happens they will be Byroned * and/or traded...

* moved to the AHL and not given a real chance to prove they are NHL calibre players.

Horak has been adding weight but is also a bit small but may be gritty enough to play on a 3rd line.

Hodgson is obviously a top talent and will be top-6 player for a long time.... a much surer thing than Kassian.... Canucks could not make a small spot for him with the Sedins and Burrows in their top 6 so they traded him for someone who has much less star potential.

Hudler is just taking up a spot.


Small talented guys that are looking for a NHL job - Mason Raymond, Kyle Wellwood, Brunner

My point was just about drafting a core. Hudler is not part of the core.

However, Hudler is not simply taking up a spot. Everyone knows your fixation on size, but size isn't everything. Believe it or not, a player like Hudler can make some room on the ice through his skill and vision. Defencemen will have to be a little closer to him. I am not a fan-boy of Hudler, but he is a skilled player that is not 'just taking up a spot'. I don't particularly like the term on his contract, but I like his game.

Flames are not like the Oilers - they have signed a multitude of larger forwards to surround the kids with. Oilers were just able to do that on their bottom line for the most part - usually by signing a goon or two who was usually a detriment on the ice. Flames have McGrattan - and though there will be moments where he gets caught and costs the Flames a goal against - he is one of the better heavyweights not just in terms of fighting ability, but also at being a smart player on the ice who plays with composure, doesn't get goaded into taking bad penalties, and plays a 'safe' enough game for his role

In addition, Flames added some larger bodies to crash and bang, and make the team more difficult to play against, and thus hopefully create a bit more room for the prospects coming in.

Hudler being on the team is not a detriment at this point. I am actually quite happy he is here. This team will need experienced skilled players to help create and sustain pressure, as well as big bodies.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by New Era

The problem is I believe Edmonton's rebuild began when they traded away Smyth, not three years later. This is when Edmonton threw in the towel for the first time and traded known players for promise. The fact they continued to try and compete is irrelevant. They were trying to win, selling it to the fans as a playoff contender, and they sucked their way into three first overall picks.

Disagree, the rebuild began when they traded away Visnovsky.

A rebuilding team doesn't trade 2 young assets like Greene and Stoll for an older Visnovsky.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Some good points, but think you over-state it a bit.

First, by only looking back to 1998, you miss the era where it was more common (early expansion). You also miss the biggest one - the Lindros trade, where I think everyone would agree that Quebec/Colorado won the trade.

As for needing a dance partner, that is an obvious requirement of any trade, but I think it is misleading to suggest that finding a trading partner would be more difficult in this type of trade (this is directed to other comments, not necessarily the quoted post). I think it is more the case that the team with the pick is leery of moving it - there are usually teams each year that express an interest in trading for it. What they would pay is obviously a factor, but nonetheless...

The team picking first is usually in more or less of a rebuilding position, so it makes sense that they would be reticent to trade the pick. However, the Oilers were in a different position last year (or at least should have been as they already had two 1st overalls and should have been looking more at organization needs).

One example of a possible trading partner would have been Pitt, who had the #8 pick. I would think they would be very interested in acquiring a pure goal scorer and, with multiple quality defensive prospects in their system, could afford to offer decent assets. A good D prospect, plus the #8 pick where they could have acquired one of Reilly, Reinhart or Trouba, depending on how the draft played out, would have made the basis for an excellent return for Edm IMO.

The point being that finding a trading partner for a trade involving the #1 pick is no different, and no more difficult, than finding a trading partner for any other major asset.

Which reminds me, not sure why you kept referring to trading for a current player since no one suggested that.

Anyway, whatever. I believe that the Oilers missed an opportunity that will lengthen their rebuild. But that is just my opinion of course.

I do think you make a good and fair point. However, I do think that every team in the top 3 - 5 have multiple offers from other teams hoping to move up. I think the Oilers didn't move because they probably felt that the offers were not good enough.

Most scouts had Yakupov as their consensus pick, and most thought that he was quite a bit better than the 2nd pick. Perhaps some teams didn't think so, perhaps their offers were low because of the common view that Edmonton 'really shouldn't draft another winger' mindset, and thus would be cheaper for them to move up. Maybe it was the Russian factor as well (though I don't think it is much of a concern with Yakupov - I think his team would have to really drive him back to Russia for him to leave).

Though I did not want Feaster to trade down at all this past draft, it was nice to hear that apparently he was fielding many calls for that pick. It is also nice to hear that he tried to trade up. I don't think anyone offered Edmonton 3 first round picks for Yak - I like Yak, but he is definitely no MacKinnon.

I think this argument can only be really settled one day if ever it was disclosed what some of the offers were, and what Edmonton was looking for in exchange. I think a deal didn't get done because it just wasn't good enough.

Also, I don't think it was a mistake for Edmonton to draft Yakupov. I would rather have him than any defencemen picked thereafter (though development might change things in the future, of course). I think a better pick would indeed have been Galchenyuk, but Yakupov is definitely a very high-end prospect. I think he will shortly surpass Eberle and be Edmonton's future RW franchise player.

What the Oilers should have done is drafted Galchenyuk instead, but if not, drafted Yakupov and trade Eberle + Gagner for a high-end center prospect. Eberle had huge value at the time of the draft, and perhaps they could have ended up getting Galchenyuk + Yakupov at the same draft. Who knows. I just don't see it as a mistake that Edmonton drafted Yak at all - I hate him because he is an Oiler, but he is going to be an impact star for that team.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ezio

Disagree, the rebuild began when they traded away Visnovsky.

A rebuilding team doesn't trade 2 young assets like Greene and Stoll for an older Visnovsky.

Sure they do, especially when the team has really bad management like the Oilers.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Most scouts had Yakupov as their consensus pick, and most thought that he was quite a bit better than the 2nd pick. Perhaps some teams didn't think so

We know some teams didn't have Yakupov #1. TOR had Rielly #1. CGY had Galchenyuk. I would speculate based on the offer CLB turned down for their pick that they likely had Murray #1.

There was less consensus at the top if that draft than most. Partially because two of the best prospects (Galchenyuk and Rielly) missed almost their whole draft year due to injury.