[Rumour] Dreger: Backlund is available. Garrioch: Shane O'Brien available too

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gord Wappel

I don't think Fleury is an idiot. You have to be a bit crazy to make it in NHL at his size.
He could have been mayor of Toronto instead.
he questioned wisdom of overlooking players (like him) who had produced at a well above a point a game pace in very demanding - and tough physically - league like WHL... in order to pick unproven "projected" Euro golden-boy projects... and U.S. high schoolers
e.g. Nikolas Sundblad 1st round 1991 (2 NHL games , 0 points)
Jesper Mattson 1st round 1993 (0 NHL games)

In retrospect the flames would probably have drafted better if they let Fleury make all the picks.

For every Fleury that made it there are 1000's of players that produced at the WHL level that didn't make it.

If we are using individual examples as reasons to do something taking Zetterberg and Datsyuk (European projects) was a much better choice for Detroit over taking proven CHL PPG guys like Kris Beech and Rico Fata.

As bad as the Flames drafting has been over time if Fleury is making the picks, based on what he has shown during and after his career, the picks are likely much, much worse.

[Gord Wappel]

Theo really produced.
I doubt you will find thousands like that:
1985–86 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 72 43 65 108
1986–87 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 66 61 68 129
1987–88 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 65 68 92 160
I remember thinking at draft time that it was illogical to discount him so much because of size ... given that smaller guys like Guy LaFleur .. it wouldn't have made any difference if he was even smaller. He was still considered a longshot for NHL after he tied Sacic with the 160 pts. Fleury's point was that this was done against some very talented, rugged and prepared opposition in WHL - best mimicking NHL type of obstacles.... so why discount him so much.
In hindsight the US and European experiments by Flames were relatively unproductive.
Now it seems there is less of a discount for small players that have produced in competitive areas. Hudler was chosen much higher and yet still seems like was a bargain.
There seems to be more NHL hope for tiny guy like John Gaudreau.
Did not Fleury pave the way a little bit ?
I use specific examples because I admit that I don't want to do a comprehensive analysis. But it seems to me like a pattern over the years. Do others not see it ?

[kyuss275]

If or when they trade Backlund, i hope he is a smaller piece in a big trade. I would hate to read CP if he is traded one for one. I don't think his value is that high by himself.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Gord Wappel

Theo really produced.
I doubt you will find thousands like that:
1985–86 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 72 43 65 108
1986–87 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 66 61 68 129
1987–88 Moose Jaw Warriors WHL 65 68 92 160
I remember thinking at draft time that it was illogical to discount him so much because of size ... given that smaller guys like Guy LaFleur .. it wouldn't have made any difference if he was even smaller. He was still considered a longshot for NHL after he tied Sacic with the 160 pts. Fleury's point was that this was done against some very talented, rugged and prepared opposition in WHL - best mimicking NHL type of obstacles.... so why discount him so much.
In hindsight the US and European experiments by Flames were relatively unproductive.
Now it seems there is less of a discount for small players that have produced in competitive areas. Hudler was chosen much higher and yet still seems like was a bargain.
There seems to be more NHL hope for tiny guy like John Gaudreau.
Did not Fleury pave the way a little bit ?
I use specific examples because I admit that I don't want to do a comprehensive analysis. But it seems to me like a pattern over the years. Do others not see it ?

Hard to compare numbers over the years because scoring was insane back in the 80's in the WHL, but since Fleury was drafted I think you will find 100's or even 1000's of guys that were around the top of their league in scoring that did not amount to anything. I imagine Fleury was "discounted" so much because as you say he paved the way. There wasn't a track record of guys like him succeeding so why would scouts start giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Not really sure how this really relates to the point about Fleury being a better choice to make draft picks though or his stupid point using individual busts as examples of why not choosing a type of player is a pretty poor way to evaluate picks.

I haven't done a comprehensive study but looking at the top 10 scorers in the WHL from 2000-2010 it appears like the average is about 2-3 of those guys go on to NHL careers. Some are repeats and some are 20 year olds that didn't produce at that level their whole careers but it does show that there are a ton of WHL hardened guys that have shown that they can produce at the WHL level and yet are nothing when it comes to the NHL.

[FlamesAddiction]

A lot of people seem to be assuming that any Backlund trade would be a guaranteed trade down. I don't think that's the case at all (he is an average bottom 6 centre at best). If we can't upgrade that position now or in the future, we'll never have a successful rebuild. We can't sit back and just not try if there is an opportunity there.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A lot of people seem to be assuming that any Backlund trade would be a guaranteed trade down. I don't think that's the case at all (he is an average bottom 6 centre at best). If we can't upgrade that position now or in the future, we'll never have a successful rebuild. We can't sit back and just not try if there is an opportunity there.

Exactly. Trade Backlund for a very good prospect and a salary dump player to get a team out of "cap jail" and profit.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Thousands? Fleury was drafted less than 30 years ago. 30 years X top 5 in scoring x 3 leagues is only 450 and many of those would appear more than once. Even if you take it to the top 10 you don't even get to 1000 players, let alone 1000 that didn't amount to anything.

[Gord Wappel]

Not really sure how this really relates to the point about Fleury being a better choice to make draft picks though or his stupid point using individual busts as examples of why not choosing a type of player is a pretty poor way to evaluate picks.

An inebriated monkey with central hockey scouting lists could have drafted better.
which is verifiable if I could raise research funding.

Fleury examples were the golden boys (projected by scouts to be NHLers) that were around him at training camps. First round picks like Sundblad and Mettson and Saprykin who really hadn't done much in careers. I put Backlund in that category. I'm sure he would have had more respect for Hudler or Datsyuk and their resume's upon entering NHL.

[moon]

What makes them golden boys other than Fleury's bitter rantings?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Thousands? Fleury was drafted less than 30 years ago. 30 years X top 5 in scoring x 3 leagues is only 450 and many of those would appear more than once. Even if you take it to the top 10 you don't even get to 1000 players, let alone 1000 that didn't amount to anything.

If top 10 is scoring is the only criteria then yes you are right but I think there are more than 10 guys a year that can be considered productive WHL players.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Backlund wasn't even a bad pick. Would have been nice if the Flames got Perron but outside of him there was no one in the next 20 picks that is better until you get to Subban at 43.

Going after the best point producer in the CHL would have yielded MacLean so that would have been a bust...

[Fusebox]

What is the asking price? A 2014 six rounder or so?

[Miniac]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

What is the asking price? A 2014 six rounder or so?

Likely get a second or a third, or the equivalent value in a prospect. Unless Burke and Feaster fleece some team.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by Miniac

Likely get a second or a third, or the equivalent value in a prospect. Unless Burke and Feaster fleece some team.

They are going to be able to fleece some team to take some salary off their hands. Watch.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I just think it's going to be a huge mistake to trade Backlund. We'll never get his true value in return.

Define his "true value". Is that based on what he was hyped to be? Or is it based on what he has been?

The Lightning demoted Connolly again... maybe if you are lucky you can convince them of the merits of a swap, even if Connolly is a couple years younger. Otherwise, part of the value in trading Backlund would be to open a roster spot for someone like Knight or Reinhart to get a look in Calgary.

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

If or when they trade Backlund, i hope he is a smaller piece in a big trade. I would hate to read CP if he is traded one for one. I don't think his value is that high by himself.

FWIW, this is Lyle Richardson's (Spectors Hockey) take on Backlund's value:

Backlund’s time in Calgary appears to be winding down. Unless he’s packaged with another player, he’ll probably bring back a draft pick or a minor league player.

Can see TB, FLA, NJ, VAN, WPG having interest in Backs after scouring the rosters.

Just thought, maybe Feaster can confuse other GM's by referring to Backlund as Backs (ie. Backes), which will inherently increase the offers by other teams.

[4oh3]

Originally Posted by strombad

At this point, what else can you do? He's been given multiple chances to prove he's worth it, and he just hasn't.

Always liked him, and I'll be happy to see him reach his potential somewhere else, but for whatever reason these things happen it's not going to be here.

Backs for ristolainen

[4oh3]

If we got a solid young dman and we won the lottery do you think they'd pick Reinhart over ekblad?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

I had absolutely nothing for or against the player until 4 years ago, when 95% of CP named him the prodigal son.

quoted for incorrect use of prodigal son, but hey i'm sure it sounded smart in your head.

[playmaker]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I don't think realistic people see him as anything more than what you're saying. The problem is would you give him up for a 3rd/2nd rounder? Because that's, most likely, all he'll bring back.

In a deep draft such as 2013 he'd be 2nd/3rd rounder anyway. I think it's safe to say that 2007 was the weakest draft class of the decade:

Spoiler!

Patrick Kane (Right Wing)
James van Riemsdyk (Left Wing)
Kyle Turris (Center)
Thomas Hickey (Defense)
Karl Alzner (Defense)
Sam Gagner (C/W)
Jakub Voracek (Right Wing)
Zach Hamill (Center)
Logan Couture (Center)
Keaton Ellerby (Defense)
Brandon Sutter (C/RW)
Ryan McDonagh (Defense)
Lars Eller (C/W)
Kevin Shattenkirk (Defense)
Alex Plante (Defense)
Colton Gillies (Center)
Alexei Cherepanov (Right Wing)
Ian Cole (Defense)
Logan MacMillan (Center)
Angelo Esposito (Center)
Riley Nash (Center)
Max Pacioretty (Left Wing)
Jonathon Blum (Defense)
Mikael Backlund (Center)
Patrick White (Center)
David Perron (Left Wing)
Brendan Smith (Defense)
Nick Petrecki (Defense)
Jim O'Brien (Center)
Nick Ross (Defense)

That's it