Craig's List 2014 Prospects

[Monahan23]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Positional need. Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't we have plenty of left wingers? Ok, none of them are massive, but with Sven, Johnny, Glimchuk and Poirer in the system, why draft another LW? If Ritchie was an out and out RW, I'd be all for taking him, Dal Colle too. I just think a defence man(Ekblad) or a talented centre(Sam x 2, Draisaitl) is a bigger positional need. Those(and RW of course) are the 2 areas we are lacking in potentially quality depth.

We're strong at C. Poirier is RW or will be because of our lack of depth. Ritchie plays both but shoots right I believe. If we're drafting for need we either trade up for Ekblad (Big, smart RD) or draft Ritchie (Big, fast, RW)

I'm fine if we draft one of these 6 guys
Ekblad
Reinhart
Draisaitl
Bennett
Virtanen
Ritchie

maybe MDC

[Bingo]

Woodlief was boosting Virtanen pretty good on 960 this morning., Haven't heard it but saw the show tweets.

Like Reinhart too.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Woodlief was boosting Virtanen pretty good on 960 this morning., Haven't heard it but saw the show tweets.

According to Woodlief, the one thing Virtanen is lacking is hockey sense.

Woodlief sees Virtanen as a player Burke would really like, but I really hope the Flames don't pick Virtanen with their first round pick

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Woodlief was boosting Virtanen pretty good on 960 this morning., Haven't heard it but saw the show tweets.

Like Reinhart too.

He hinted at FLA taking Ekblad, BUF taking Bennett, EDM taking Leon, and Reinhart falling to CGY.

I liked Boomer's analogy. It's like finding money on the street.

[Zee]

I think they should always draft the BPA. Even if that player does not fill an organizational need, he can easily be moved to fill that piece piece to a team that covets them. It never hurts to move a new draft pick for a player that has a year or two of development already.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

Treliving said they will draft BPA... I have not seen one scouting list that has Ritchie ahead of Draisaitl. Ritchie would be a great addition for the Flames but he's not better than Draisaitl.

Ritchie may indeed end up a better player than anyone else in the draft - there are many scouting reports that say this exact thing. He is currently not has highly ranked, but if a team does believe that he will end up as the best player down the road, they should snag him then. He may end up a much better player than Draisaitl in the long run - time will tell.

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

If we plan on trading down, I think Anaheim might have interest in grabbing Draisaitl at #4. They too need a #2 center. If we drafted Ritchie at #10 and then maybe traded our 54th OA and the 28th pick to move up to #20 or so, maybe we can pick up Tuch.

I would really doubt Ritchie is available at 10. Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett, Dal Colle - these will most likely go ahead of Ritchie. Then Ehlers and Nylander. Don't think he lasts much longer after this, if he doesn't end up getting selected before some of the names I listed.

[Yoho]

All this talk about Ritchie is pretty hard for me to swallow at 4th overall.

Keep in mind Raffi Torres was drafted 5th overall and went on to be a great career 3-4th liner.

If we get a shot at a Kopitar "like" player with the potential comparable skillset at center that would be crazy to walk away from

[Funkhouser]

Regardless of his skill-set and our needs, something about Ritchie is unsettling for me. Its the same thing that bugged me about Gauthier last year.

From a completely superficial standpoint, they look unintelligent . This isn't based on anything solid, but I feel like they fit the mold of 'dumb jock' over the 'high hockey IQ' model that we have been recently drafting since 2010 (with improved success). Ritchie's twitter handle sold me on it.

Its not like I expect these guys to be Rhodes Scholars, but when you watch Virtanen in an interview vs. Ritchie, there is a clear divide in how they express themselves.

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by Monahan23

We're strong at C. Poirier is RW or will be because of our lack of depth. Ritchie plays both but shoots right I believe. If we're drafting for need we either trade up for Ekblad (Big, smart RD) or draft Ritchie (Big, fast, RW)

I'm fine if we draft one of these 6 guys
Ekblad
Reinhart
Draisaitl
Bennett
Virtanen
Ritchie

maybe MDC

Don't know where you are looking, but all the scouting reports I've found on Ritchie list him as both a left hand shot and LW.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/nick-ritchie/

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/nh...-nick-ritchie/

Judging by the picture in that second link, I'd say he is definitely a leftie. Ok, maybe he could move over and play RW, but clearly the scouts think he is a LW and I don't know how comfortable you can be as a leftie playing on the opposite side. Works for some, doesn't for others. We're strong at centre? Backlund, Monahan and.....? Yes, we have prospects, but are they ones we can see being a top 6 centre? I don't think adding a Sam/Leon to that is a bad thing, nor something we should pass up on just to get another left handed natural LW.

[Matty81]

Ritchie would be a terrible pick at 4, not that he's a bad player but out of all the scouting reports not one has him above Draisaitl and Dal Colle.

So at the very least, you trade down to 6 and pick up a 2nd + if he is your target. If somebody else wants to play smartest guy in the room and reach for him at 4 and Draisaitl or Dal Colle slides to 6, you still win.

Other guys available at 4 are better players today and I wouldn't agree that Dal Colle or Draisaitly have a lower upside anyway.

For me, picking guys who succeed in junior because they lean on smaller players is a recipe for disaster. Not that Ritchie won't be a good player, but his game this year was built on his ability to bulldoze everybody on the ice. At the Nhl level he is not big enough to do that, and with concussions already, frankly he has fairly high bust potential.

[codynw]

Definitely don't want Ritchie at 4th, or even to trade down a few spots to grab him. Take the BPA at 4th and address needs with the rest of the picks.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson

Regardless of his skill-set and our needs, something about Ritchie is unsettling for me. Its the same thing that bugged me about Gauthier last year.

From a completely superficial standpoint, they look unintelligent . This isn't based on anything solid, but I feel like they fit the mold of 'dumb jock' over the 'high hockey IQ' model that we have been recently drafting since 2010 (with improved success). Ritchie's twitter handle sold me on it.

Its not like I expect these guys to be Rhodes Scholars, but when you watch Virtanen in an interview vs. Ritchie, there is a clear divide in how they express themselves.

Funny thing is the knock on Virtanen is hockey IQ. There's not necessarily any correlation between "real world" intelligence and hockey intelligence

[shutout]

I think that everybody in the organization has Ekblad at the top of their list, because of his size, potential, skillset, and team needs.

I think that they all have their own second choice forward that they want.

Burke – Ritchie
Treliving – Draisaitl
Conroy – Reinhart
Button – Bennett

This is just my personal opinion of who I think they would choose based on how I perceive their personalities and histories.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by shutout

I think that everybody in the organization has Ekblad at the top of their list, because of his size, potential, skillset, and team needs.

I think that they all have their own second choice forward that they want.

Burke – Ritchie
Treliving – Draisaitl
Conroy – Reinhart
Button – Bennett

This is just my personal opinion of who I think they would choose based on how I perceive their personalities and histories.

Conroy has already stated that him and Treliving has different #1 guys. My guess is that Treliving likes Ekblad and Conroy likes Reinhart.

[Matty81]

Steinberg on air right now saying he's been sniffing around the flames execs re the #4 pick, for what it's worth his comments;
- believes the flames have their list
- thinks that the flames believe in the consensus top 4 (including Draisaitl) and will take whoever is left for them
- thinks they also really like Nick Ritchie and have him ranked #5 but will not take him at 4

[mile]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Steinberg on air right now saying he's been sniffing around the flames execs re the #4 pick, for what it's worth his comments;
- believes the flames have their list
- thinks that the flames believe in the consensus top 4 (including Draisaitl) and will take whoever is left for them
- thinks they also really like Nick Ritchie and have him ranked #5 but will not take him at 4

Perfectly fine with this.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Steinberg on air right now saying he's been sniffing around the flames execs re the #4 pick, for what it's worth his comments;
- believes the flames have their list
- thinks that the flames believe in the consensus top 4 (including Draisaitl) and will take whoever is left for them
- thinks they also really like Nick Ritchie and have him ranked #5 but will not take him at 4

This is exactly what's best for the Flames. Tallon didn't like our offer, so we'll just take the #4 player and call it good.

[northcrunk]

If your going off the board to pick a power forward at #4 I would much rather Virtanen than Ritchie. I actually hope the flames keep their pick at 4 and try to get a second 1st to take Virtanen.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

If your going off the board to pick a power forward at #4 I would much rather Virtanen than Ritchie. I actually hope the flames keep their pick at 4 and try to get a second 1st to take Virtanen.

Why Virtanen over Ritchie? Everything about Ritchie points to him being a better player. Only thing Virtanen has over Ritchie is a RH shot.

[Phaneufenstein]

Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson

Regardless of his skill-set and our needs, something about Ritchie is unsettling for me. Its the same thing that bugged me about Gauthier last year.

From a completely superficial standpoint, they look unintelligent . This isn't based on anything solid, but I feel like they fit the mold of 'dumb jock' over the 'high hockey IQ' model that we have been recently drafting since 2010 (with improved success). Ritchie's twitter handle sold me on it.

Its not like I expect these guys to be Rhodes Scholars, but when you watch Virtanen in an interview vs. Ritchie, there is a clear divide in how they express themselves.

Agree to a point, but not all hockey players need to be cerebral to be good hockey players.
Ovechkin, Lucic, Marchand, Hall and a bunch more come to mind.

Personally, I think the less "intelligent" types are usually mentally stronger.