Craig's List 2014 Prospects - Page 93 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

The Fonz · 03-18-2014, 09:50 PM

I was in the Lindholm camp last year vs Monahan, so please God, let me be wrong about Dal Colle like I was about Monahan.

Calgary4LIfe · 03-18-2014, 09:55 PM

I am going to assume that Burke is fairly high on Ritchie. I have only seen him play in parts of a couple of periods. How does he look like to everyone? I was surprised with Savvy's link on the previous page of scouting summaries on some players, and they said Ritchie is comparable to Lucic, but better hands, sense, scoring.

I heard that Ritchie has poor hockey sense from some people. From the people that have watched him play regularly, what do you guys see?

Getting a big powerforward with the way that scout summarized would be great moving forward. He is probably the most physical player in the top 10 by the sounds of it, and fits in with Burke's "surround our skilled players with beef" attitude - and I am assuming Ritchie has plenty of skill to be ranked this high in the draft at the moment.

As long as he has high or at least above-average hockey IQ, I wouldn't be terribly upset (but definitely not in my top 4 or 5 choices - maybe even lower).

The Fonz · 03-18-2014, 11:04 PM

2 - Edmonton - 59pts - 12GR
3 - Florida - 60pts - 13GR
4 - NYI - 61pts - 12GR
5 - Calgary - 63pts - 13GR
6 - Nashville - 68pts - 13GR
7 - Carolina - 69pts - 13GR

Tomorrow:
NSH @ VAN

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-19-2014, 01:41 AM

My rankings as of now:

1. Ekblad - D. We need a top two defenseman with size much more than we need another centre. He's right handed to boot. Perfect fit. Our ideal draft is landing this guy IMO and I'd be willing to give up some good assets to move up. We definitely have enough to make an attractive offer IMO especially if Buffalo is the team that ends up with the pick.
2. Reinhart - C
3. Bennett - C
4. Draisaitl - C
5. Dal Colle - LW
6. Ritchie - LW
7. Virtanen - RW
8. Perlini - LW
9. Fleury - D

I think Dal Colle and Ritchie may be closer for some than the rankings suggest. Ritchie sounds like the better fit as the more physical player and it wouldn't shock me if we took him, I almost put him ahead of Dal Colle. Still some intriguing players after the top 4 which is good because it looks like we have a slim chance of drafting that high.

SHOGUN · 03-19-2014, 01:48 AM

I would not be disappointed if the Flames picked up Nick Ritchie.

djsFlames · 03-19-2014, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

I would not be disappointed if the Flames picked up Nick Ritchie.

With our depth at LW, there are far better choices.

StrykerSteve · 03-19-2014, 06:27 AM

Ekblad or bust. 1st + 2nd + 3rd if necessary.

Yoho · 03-19-2014, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Ekblad or bust. 1st + 2nd + 3rd if necessary.

Oil would match, and beat that offer.

Especially with their draft history, it would take the pressure off them having to pick late rounds.

Keep in mind Colorado turned down three first round picks for Mackinnon last year.

StrykerSteve · 03-19-2014, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoho

Oil would match, and beat that offer.

Especially with their draft history, it would take the pressure off them having to pick late rounds.

Keep in mind Colorado turned down three first round picks for Mackinnon last year.

MacKinnon was a special player, he's Crosby-esque.

Ekblad isn't. He just happens to fill a need for many teams.

Vulcan · 03-19-2014, 08:38 AM

Here's a good article on Richie.

Quote:

Interesting that he plays a lot of the game on the right side leading me to think he could easily play on either left or right wing at the next level.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...e-oilers-need/

Yoho · 03-19-2014, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

MacKinnon was a special player, he's Crosby-esque.

Ekblad isn't. He just happens to fill a need for many teams.

Your dreaming if you think a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pick gets Ekblad

edslunch · 03-19-2014, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fonz

2 - Edmonton - 59pts - 12GR
3 - Florida - 60pts - 13GR
4 - NYI - 61pts - 12GR
5 - Calgary - 63pts - 13GR
6 - Nashville - 68pts - 13GR
7 - Carolina - 69pts - 13GR

Tomorrow:
NSH @ VAN

Based on last 10 games the Flames would catch Nashville and be a point back of Carolina. Not considering schedules or tie-breakers it's quite conceivable that Calgary picks 7th

MrMastodonFarm · 03-19-2014, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

MacKinnon was a special player, he's Crosby-esque.
.

No.

StrykerSteve · 03-19-2014, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoho

Your dreaming if you think a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pick gets Ekblad

You may be right, it's just internet speculation. I'm obviously basing it on past history and evidence that indicates the price to move up isn't as high as fans would like to believe it is.

Only works if the team in that spot is willing to deal, though.

If Buffalo (or whomever wins the lottery, but let's just assume it's the Sabres because it's the most likely result) is willing to move the pick, it will be very interesting to see what it costs to do so.

T@T · 03-19-2014, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

I would not be disappointed if the Flames picked up Nick Ritchie.

I would prefer Virtanen.

Oil Stain · 03-19-2014, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoho

Oil would match, and beat that offer.

Especially with their draft history, it would take the pressure off them having to pick late rounds.

Keep in mind Colorado turned down three first round picks for Mackinnon last year.

You have to think that in any scenario that involves a trade down Buffalo is still going to want to get "their" guy.

So I don't see why Buffalo would take any trade down to 4-5th unless its a deal that is a major overpay.

formulate · 03-19-2014, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You have to think that in any scenario that involves a trade down Buffalo is still going to want to get "their" guy.

So I don't see why Buffalo would take any trade down to 4-5th unless its a deal that is a major overpay.

Agree with this, big time. Especially if the return is going to be picks, which they have (and have had) an abundance of. If anything, I can see them trading up their (potential) other first round pick(s) for another top-10. Or packaging picks for NHL-ready prospects/young players. I can't really see Buffalo being interested in our (or anyone's) second rounder. Sven Baertschi? More likely.

automaton 3 · 03-19-2014, 09:20 AM

There was some discussion in a thread last year about Draft Value Charts, but not sure how much stock teams put in them.

On the chart I'm looking at the value difference to move up from 5th to 1st overall is 176 points (741 to 917) which is equivalent to the 57th or 58th overall pick (a late 2nd).

getbak · 03-19-2014, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoho

Oil would match, and beat that offer.

Especially with their draft history, it would take the pressure off them having to pick late rounds.

Keep in mind Colorado turned down three first round picks for Mackinnon last year.

The Oilers don't have the picks to match that offer. After their first rounder, the Oilers don't have another pick until Buffalo's fourth rounder. They have traded away their own second, third, fourth, and fifth round picks for this year's draft.

Right now, the Flames have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. The Oilers have one.

Yoho · 03-19-2014, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getbak

The Oilers don't have the picks to match that offer. After their first rounder, the Oilers don't have another pick until Buffalo's fourth rounder. They have traded away their own second, third, fourth, and fifth round picks for this year's draft.

Right now, the Flames have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. The Oilers have one.

Ahh but they have plenty of first overalls to dangle don't they...