[News] Burke says he is unlikely to trade up... hasn't watched Bennett

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by AC

I think Draisaitl meant he would love to be drafted by the Oilers, and when asked what about the Flames, his answers would be obviously be the same.

I dunno. to me I always try to think about what I'd say in his shoes. if asked id say "id love to play for calgary, would be a great honor" - "and what about edmonton?" - "in my situation, i have to be diplomatic, so the same applies." which would obviously be a lie. I doubt he'd pull a lindros or anything, but i suspect he, in his heart, doesnt really want to be a calgary flame.

[greentree]

Originally Posted by Cortez

What's with the hate for Ritchie on here? - I know nothing about him, just curious.

I don't get it either. I think he's legit.

[djsFlames]

Again, there's no hate. Just a belief that the consensus top 4 forwards - Reinhart, Bennett, Dal Colle, Draisaitl, have more tools and a higher ceiling than Ritchie. And I would agree. And watching a fair amount of video on Ritchie he really impressed me. But I see more in the rest of those guys. Ritchie is ranked below them on most lists for a reason. So if we took Ritchie in the 4th position as opposed to one of the top 5 ranked guys, I would be disappointed, as I think most of them will project to be top line players, whereas I don't know if Ritchie projects to be a top line guy.. I see a second line power forward if he progresses well and his weight doesn't begin to be a factor in his skating/speed. Though reading about his training with these fitness and skating coaches in the summer, it's unlikely to be an issue.

[strombad]

Agree with above, and I think most do.
Would love to have Ritchie if our pick was 2-3 spots lower, just not at 4.

[Calgary4LIfe]

There are a number of scouts that feel if Ritchie goes to the right team that works with his consistency and conditioning issues, he could end up being the best player in the draft. I myself have him ranked 5th on my list, and would be 'somewhat disappointed' taking him there, but I will not freak out if the Flames select him there. He has legitimate upside, and fills a very big need on the team moving forward, especially in this division.

The last thing I want to see happen is him going to the Canucks or dropping to Anaheim. Hope an Eastern team takes him.

[AC]

I think its important to remember when talking about any sort of "consensus" is that there is no such thing.

There is no single list, and the individual rankings amongst the teams likely will vary significantly, even within the top 5.

We saw it last year where some teams had Barkov ranked 1st even, let alone MacKinnon, Jones, and Drouin.

Its entirely possible that some teams have a few players commonly considered outside of the top 5 on various lists or mentioned in different discussions in their top few.

Burke and our scouts may have Ritchie or Dal Colle or someone else ranked within their top 4.

I know its no use to try and prepare people not to freak out if the "consensus" #3 or #4 falls to us and we take a different player, but its entirely possible that if you looked at all the teams' top 5 rankings, you'd find 10+ different players included.

[Street Pharmacist]

There usually is a consensus between the scouting services and the media, it's just that they don't make the decisions. It's verbage really. Some teams make big mistakes in the first round and everyone knows it

[djsFlames]

Well aside from the several scouting lists that rank him lower than the others, I say it from watching various video of these guys, and seeing more qualities I like in the others. When looking at raw skill, speed and finishing ability, I'd actually put Dal Colle as high as 2nd on my list, but the fact that he has played wing through his OHL career does take his stock down slightly for me, because up front I think we need to build from the middle out. This is the same with Ritchie, as he is a LW. So that would put him automatically behind the centers (and Ekblad) for me. And I've been more impressed in watching Dal Colle, so Ritchie then goes to 6th, which is about where these rankings have him. I'd take Ritchie over a lot of guys considered "second tier", but I wouldn't take him over any of the "top tier" guys (whether he's ranked in someone else's top 5 or not). I see him as the 6th, maybe 7th BPA just like the FC, ISS and central scouting lists have him. I think that's about where he stacks up in this draft class, and why we shouldn't be taking him at 4th overall. But you're right in that a few lists doesn't make it the consensus per say, but for me, that's where he ranks.

And I'd be even more disappointed taking Ritchie knowing that Vancouver would likely get someone like Dal Colle, who I believe projects to be a better player in the future. While I don't hate Ritchie at all, it would definitely sting quite a bit, at least initially.

[RisebroughRuinedMyYouth]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

I dunno. to me I always try to think about what I'd say in his shoes. if asked id say "id love to play for calgary, would be a great honor" - "and what about edmonton?" - "in my situation, i have to be diplomatic, so the same applies." which would obviously be a lie. I doubt he'd pull a lindros or anything, but i suspect he, in his heart, doesnt really want to be a calgary flame.

If a player said "in my situation, i have to be diplomatic, so the same applies.", they would get branded a diva and shoot down draft boards.

[LockedOut]

I wonder how CP would respond if the Flames picked a defenceman not named Ekblad with the number 4 pick.

[irrevocable]

Fleury with number 4 pick? Yeah, meltdown.

[3thirty]

Originally Posted by LockedOut

I wonder how CP would respond if the Flames picked a defenceman not named Ekblad with the number 4 pick.

Snipetype would have an orgasm.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by LockedOut

I wonder how CP would respond if the Flames picked a defenceman not named Ekblad with the number 4 pick.

People would be pissed, not because we took him there, but rather we could trade down to 10 or so and still likely get him.

If that was the case, you could ask the Ducks for both their 1sts + something in order for them to move up. That way you'd be able to possibly get both Fleury + McKeown

(I wouldn't do that at all personally)

[SHOGUN]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I thought for a long time whether I should include Toews in there because I figured some would take that point and not comprehend the rest of the post. I could easily argue that Bergeron is a #1C as well. Heck Couture is a legitimate #1C as well. Why just point out Toews and not my other choices?

I'll say that perhaps the "true #1C" words were poorly used on my part, but I had hoped people would understand the context for which it was said. For that I mean the #1C role is GENERALLY used to define a go-to offensive center - Thornton, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Datysuk, Tavares are stereotypical. I'm talking about needing a go-to 1st line offensive talent, and having a center anchor that top line in Draisaitl might be the best result.

I'm just saying that Drasaitl has the ability to anchor a new top line by himself. Dal Colle and Bennett are complementary pieces to what we currently have. We need both, but unless we're thinking Eichel/McDavid (who also seem to have the potential to anchor new lines), I think it'd be better to get the center.

Also, I'm saying we HAVE our Toews already - Monahan is that guy. Would you rather have 2 Toews or a Toews and a Kane?

If you think Monahan plays like Toews, you haven't been paying close attention.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

People would be pissed, not because we took him there, but rather we could trade down to 10 or so and still likely get him.

If that was the case, you could ask the Ducks for both their 1sts + something in order for them to move up. That way you'd be able to possibly get both Fleury + McKeown

(I wouldn't do that at all personally)

But what if the assistant GM said other teams were going to take him next if we didn't. Would you buy that?

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by Dagger

It would probably be an upset if he doesn't ever get to 40. Tim Murray said of him:



That's high praise from a man known to be one of the best talent evaluators in the NHL.

The fact that people are saying he needs a C to get him the puck concerns me. Elite forwards should make others around them better, not vice versa. It's not like the cupboard is empty on the wing and given all that we went through through the Iginla era (lack of top C), I hope we take the best C remaining.

And for all the knocks on Draisaitl, a lot of his flaws are similar to what scouts were saying about Getzlaf in his draft year.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by irrevocable

Fleury with number 4 pick? Yeah, meltdown.

It's not a meltdown when you draft a 'meat and potatoes' defenseman.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by AC

I think its important to remember when talking about any sort of "consensus" is that there is no such thing.

There is no single list, and the individual rankings amongst the teams likely will vary significantly, even within the top 5.

We saw it last year where some teams had Barkov ranked 1st even, let alone MacKinnon, Jones, and Drouin.

Its entirely possible that some teams have a few players commonly considered outside of the top 5 on various lists or mentioned in different discussions in their top few.

Burke and our scouts may have Ritchie or Dal Colle or someone else ranked within their top 4.

I know its no use to try and prepare people not to freak out if the "consensus" #3 or #4 falls to us and we take a different player, but its entirely possible that if you looked at all the teams' top 5 rankings, you'd find 10+ different players included.

So true.

Its a ton of fun to speculate but the only lists that are significant are the 30 different ones created by tireless hours of watching and evaluating by each teams scouts.

Some homeruns and lots of mistakes when drafting 18 year olds.

3-5 years from now is when it becomes clear what side of the ledger you were on.

[ComixZone]

There seems to be a lot of appetite to not draft one of Ekblad, Reinhart, Bennett or Draisaitl...that just makes no bloody sense to me.

A lot of you seem to falling in love with Nick Ritchie, a power forward at the Jr. level, consistently ranked no higher than 6th to 15th, while poo-pooing Draisaitl, a player consistently ranked 3rd to 5th for the vast majority of this past season.

Some of you are even looking further down the ranks at players like Fleury, who Burke himself said something along the lines of "yeah, he's a top 10 pick now, but not top 5" - so again, are you seriously contending we should draft off the board with our organization's first top 5 pick?

There is a clear consensus top 5, and has been pretty much the entire last year. Aaron Ekblad, Leon Draisaitl, Sam Reinhart, Sam Bennett and Michael Dal Colle. I just find it funny that there seems to be a group nitpicking certain aspects about those players games in favour of other players, seemingly ignoring the fact that those other players have the same imperfections to their game, and more.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

There seems to be a lot of appetite to not draft one of Ekblad, Reinhart, Bennett or Draisaitl...that just makes no bloody sense to me.

A lot of you seem to falling in love with Nick Ritchie, a power forward at the Jr. level, consistently ranked no higher than 6th to 15th, while poo-pooing Draisaitl, a player consistently ranked 3rd to 5th for the vast majority of this past season.

Some of you are even looking further down the ranks at players like Fleury, who Burke himself said something along the lines of "yeah, he's a top 10 pick now, but not top 5" - so again, are you seriously contending we should draft off the board with our organization's first top 5 pick?

There is a clear consensus top 5, and has been pretty much the entire last year. Aaron Ekblad, Leon Draisaitl, Sam Reinhart, Sam Bennett and Michael Dal Colle. I just find it funny that there seems to be a group nitpicking certain aspects about those players games in favour of other players, seemingly ignoring the fact that those other players have the same imperfections to their game, and more.

First off, there is no 'board'. The 'board' is what a specific team ranks all the prospects. They vary by quite a bit from team to team. Now and then, you will see a team's rankings being leaked (usually after the draft).

Second, I have yet to see a post where people are not wanting to pick Ekblad or Reinhart or Bennet. I haven't seen a single one.

Draisaitl has his warts. If you believe Burke, he is seen as a third line player. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen.

Dal Colle also has question marks. I still haven't seen a post where posters are advocating passing him up for anyone except the guys ranked above him if they fall.

The talk about Ritchie - I think it all started because some posters were saying "Do not want - just like Kassian" (which is completely without merit if you compare their respective scouting reports). Like it or not, he is probably fairly high on Burke's wishlist. I still haven't seen anyone preferring him over at least 4 of the 5 guys you speak about being as part of the 'consensus board'. Everyone who is pro-Ritchie seems to also be more pro-guys ahead of him. Flames might end up drafting Ritchie, and all the Ritchie talk is to at least remove the false narratives some posters have of him (can't make plays, no hockey sense, etc - he is a legitimate high-end pick). I think FDW and I seem to be the most 'pro-Ritchie' on this board, and neither one of us 'prefers' him over the other guys - but that doesn't mean that Ritchie won't be an extremely valuable addition to the prospect pool (and maybe even be looked at as one of the very best players chosen with a couple of years' worth of hindsight).

Fleury was brought up by one single poster. I hardly think that constitutes a response, especially when it was followed-up with a few pages of ridicule which is still on-going with the 'meat and potatoes' jokes.

Nobody is overlooking any weaknesses on any player in the draft. The 'consensus' is clear for you - that's great. It may not be clear to the rest of the posters, or to all 30 NHL teams. I have no issues with someone thinking Ritchie, Nylander, Ehlers, Kapanen, etc., are better choices for that pick. It has ZERO effect on what the Flames end up doing anyways. I personally enjoy debating and hearing why they think that, however it may disagree with my own biases.