[Rumour] Buffalo's and Florida's 1st round picks are in play

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by 5by5

Why is everyone so worried about the cap. There are some UFA's we could sign. There WILL be many teams looking to dump salaries. Treviling specifically made mention of this fact, not me. "We are open for business" Brian Burke. He has also alluded to the same thing at the past trade deadline. Am I wrong or just informed?

I feel like doing so would create a glass canon. Sure, we might have firepower, but hoping the machine doesn't blow up and disintegrate before winning the Stanley Cup is wishful thinking. Personally, I also prefer we don't end up

A hockey team is like a machine, so merely grabbing performing pieces, meshing it together and hoping it works doesn't quite work if they don't have synergies with each other. Have you heard of the zero ######s given RX7?

I also think most people have a long term cup contention in mind. Not another cinderella story run and then fading into obscurity for another decade or so.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by shawnjohn

I was wondering if the flames would be interested in moving Gio for the first overall to fla and pick up ekblad. It would fill floridas need for a roster player, and the flames would have a nice pairing moving forward forward with ekblad and Brodie.

I love Gio as much as the next guy but he's not getting any younger and his trade value is high.

Understand that even though he provides great leadership 3 years from now he may not be here and if he is he won't be nearly as good IMO.

I'd make this deal but I don't think Florida would.

[Joe Nieuwendyk]

I think we've all learned that a hockey team is like a house.....or the stock market. But it's DEFINITELY NOT like poker!

[Fire]

I guess 5by5 doesn't buy into the idea of having quality veterans to enhance the development of young players on the team. Let's give Monahan, Sven, Gaudreau, Granlund, Poirier and Reinhart guaranteed top-6 minutes like the Oilers would have and hope for the best?

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Fire

I guess 5by5 doesn't buy into the idea of having quality veterans to enhance the development of young players on the team. Let's give Monahan, Sven, Gaudreau, Granlund, Poirier and Reinhart guaranteed top-6 minutes like the Oilers would have and hope for the best?

or maybe he is Kevin Lowe in disguise trolling this site.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by FAN

I think you are slightly confused with what Mile said and you two are talking about different things. Mile is saying "you can't" in support of the theory that you draft the BPA regardless of positional needs. You are saying "you can" from an ability standpoint where teams can and likely often do draft someone based on positional needs.

I think you completely missed my point. Mile suggested that the best thing to do is go for BPA and only look at each year's draft in isolation of the others.

Originally Posted by mile

The best thing to do right now is pick the best player available and handle the situation one year at a time.

What I am saying is that BPA is good and all but having a long term plan is a pretty crucial step in a rebuild. If we look at every draft in isolation then everyone is going to keep saying the same things: "Select BPA regardless of position" and "get the best Center you can because Stamkos!!!".

These ideas are great and all but if all we do is keep blindly picking BPA based on what central scouting and TSN tells us then our long term plan is likely going to flop. Case in point, the Flames should probably be looking to trade away a good LW asset to get anything else simply because that is the one position that we are stacked in.

Personally, I think Ekblad is BPA so trying to acquire him is a great idea. I also think that Ekblad fills our largest weakness in the depth chart (RD) so trying to acquire him is a great idea. AND, I also think that in our long term plan, trying to get a potential #1 Dman in this year's draft is a great idea because that will allow him the extra year to develop over whoever we could pick in 2015.

If we wait until next year to grab Sean Day (LHD) we may get that #1 D but he won't fit as well with our team's needs and he will be a year behind in development. Since Dmen take longer to develop than forwards, it means that our currently exciting forward prospects will be ready to go and our D will not be.

So yeah, I hope we get Ekblad but I pray that we find a way to do so without giving up either our first this year or our first next year. Ideally we find a way to pull it off by trading away from our position of strength (LW).

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 5by5

Thats why I am here. They should learn how to read. I guess I will have to use more caps and point form

You should learn to accept that some posters here might disagree with your opinions.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I think you completely missed my point. Mile suggested that the best thing to do is go for BPA and only look at each year's draft in isolation of the others.

I did not completely miss your point. You completely missed my points. Read again what I wrote. My points still stand.

Originally Posted by Wolven

What I am saying is that BPA is good and all but having a long term plan is a pretty crucial step in a rebuild. If we look at every draft in isolation then everyone is going to keep saying the same things: "Select BPA regardless of position"

What Mile was saying and what I was trying to explain to you is that what you are saying goes against the theory of drafting the BPA. I believe every team does say the same thing because that is the prevalent theory on how to draft. Both Burke and Treliving have said that the Flames will continue drafting BPA. No way are they thinking of who is available in next year's draft when making their selection at #4. I will bet anything that they are looking at this draft in isolation when making the #4 overall selection. Only time you are looking at next year's draft is when you are acquiring a draft pick and then you would be thinking about 2014 vs 2015.

Originally Posted by Wolven

These ideas are great and all but if all we do is keep blindly picking BPA based on what central scouting and TSN tells us then our long term plan is likely going to flop. Case in point, the Flames should probably be looking to trade away a good LW asset to get anything else simply because that is the one position that we are stacked in.

I would hope the Calgary Flames are not blinding picking BPA based on what central scouting and what TSN tells them. Again, you draft the BPA available when it is the team's time to make their selection. As I explained, it doesn't mean that positional needs and things such as style of play do not factor into this equation, but the idea is that you don't bypass someone you feel will be a better player just because a player fills a positional need. You worry about positional needs later (addressed through trade or free agency). The theory behind this is pretty clear. You don't know how players are going to develop, you don't know how long it will take for the player you select in this year's draft to start contributing, you don't know what the team will look like in the future, so you really don't know what your positional needs are a few years down the line. I mean if Ekblad isn't available do you propose the Flames drafting the next best defenseman (Fleury?) because the Flames have used their last 5 1st rounders on forwards?

Originally Posted by Wolven

I also think that in our long term plan, trying to get a potential #1 Dman in this year's draft is a great idea because that will allow him the extra year to develop over whoever we could pick in 2015.

That's why there are teams that do say that all else being equal they take a defenseman. And all else being equal, at the day of the draft, this year's draft choice tend to be more valuable than next year's unless next year's draft is considered that deep.

It's like Burke trusting his scouts and drafting Bobby Ryan instead of Jack Johnson. You think Burke and his scouts were looking at next year and thinking to themselves they should draft a defenseman this year because next year's draft is forward heavy?

[mile]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I think you completely missed my point. Mile suggested that the best thing to do is go for BPA and only look at each year's draft in isolation of the others.

These ideas are great and all but if all we do is keep blindly picking BPA based on what central scouting and TSN tells us then our long term plan is likely going to flop. Case in point, the Flames should probably be looking to trade away a good LW asset to get anything else simply because that is the one position that we are stacked in.

Personally, I think Ekblad is BPA so trying to acquire him is a great idea. I also think that Ekblad fills our largest weakness in the depth chart (RD) so trying to acquire him is a great idea. AND, I also think that in our long term plan, trying to get a potential #1 Dman in this year's draft is a great idea because that will allow him the extra year to develop over whoever we could pick in 2015.

When I say BPA I don't mean BPA based on central scouting or TSN - The definition of BPA could mean different things to different teams.

In a year where the top 4 seems fairly even, the criteria for choosing BPA can take positional need as a bigger factor - that is perfectly plausible and I agree with you that Ekblad probably seems like the best fit for Calgary given that the extra year of development will help him.

However I don't want the Flames picking a player based on any assumptions about next years draft - there are too many variables and it is difficult to forecast where we are picking and in which position the strength of the draft class lies in.

Getting Ekblad and saying he is the BPA makes sense with the reasoning that we are weak on top pairing defensemen and that picking him now would fall nicely with when the Flames would want to contend again given that defensemen take longer to acclimate to the NHL.

Getting Ekblad solely under the assumption that we are getting a center next year doesn't make sense. It may turn out to be that way this time next year, but right now there is just as good of a chance a defenseman could be chosen next year too regardless of whether we take Ekblad or not.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

Gio for Eckblad is over payment.

Unless they throw in Gubranson too. I would do that.

[mile]

"Blindly taking the BPA every year" wasn't the Oilers' problem.

Their criteria for choosing the BPA in the first place was the problem. It seems like they neglected factors like positional need and their idea of what contending team should look like was flawed. Taking Hall and RNH may be justifiable, but Yakupov didn't make any sense when they could have used a big #1 centre (Galchenyuk) or a top paring defenseman (Reilly, Trouba, Murray.)

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by 5by5

The fortune ball tells me, if we trade Gio we be bottom dwellers next year.

is this guy for real? you do know that the last place team has a 75% chance of NOT picking first and it gets worse from there

[Hugh Jahrmes]

1. Name Gio captain
2. Ask him to waive ....
.....
.... To Florida
3. Absolutely do not f###ing profit.

[Gaskal]

This thread was fun before 5by5 turned it into crap.

[Zevo]

It takes two to tango. People replying to him after it was pretty obvious he's just going to be belligerent are equally to blame.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

This thread was fun before 5by5 turned it into crap.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by mile

"Blindly taking the BPA every year" wasn't the Oilers' problem.

Their criteria for choosing the BPA in the first place was the problem. It seems like they neglected factors like positional need and their idea of what contending team should look like was flawed. Taking Hall and RNH may be justifiable, but Yakupov didn't make any sense when they could have used a big #1 centre (Galchenyuk) or a top paring defenseman (Reilly, Trouba, Murray.)

Okay you lost me there. Choosing the BPA requires neglecting factors such as positional need. Yakupov was the consensus BPA. The problem is that the Oilers didn't need Yakupov. What the Oilers should have done was to trade down or trade away one of their young wingers to address team needs. Dean Lombardi was on the verge of losing his job when the Kings won the Cup. Why? Because Lombardi loved hoarding draft picks and patiently waiting for them to develop. Eventually he had to trade his bluechip prospect Schenn for immediate help.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by FAN

Okay you lost me there. Choosing the BPA requires neglecting factors such as positional need. Yakupov was the consensus BPA. The problem is that the Oilers didn't need Yakupov. What the Oilers should have done was to trade down or trade away one of their young wingers to address team needs. Dean Lombardi was on the verge of losing his job when the Kings won the Cup. Why? Because Lombardi loved hoarding draft picks and patiently waiting for them to develop. Eventually he had to trade his bluechip prospect Schenn for immediate help.

I don't know that I would agree that Yakupov was the consensus BPA. That draft seemed to have a lot of disagreement in terms of who teams would take at the top. Some teams liked Murray, others Galchenyuk, and even the Leafs are on record saying Reilly was #1 for them.

Yakupov was far from a consensus #1.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know that I would agree that Yakupov was the consensus BPA. That draft seemed to have a lot of disagreement in terms of who teams would take at the top. Some teams liked Murray, others Galchenyuk, and even the Leafs are on record saying Reilly was #1 for them.

Yakupov was far from a consensus #1.

There was definitely some debate about who could go #1 that year, but Yakupov was at the top of many lists. I think a lot of teams would have taken him at #1, but he was the wrong pick for Edmonton at that time.

His development since being drafted was crap. He doesn't play with the same intensity as he did when he was drafted and was wrongly put on a pedestal from day one in Edmonton (probably because they were afraid of him not reporting to the minors and going to the KHL for more money).

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There was definitely some debate about who could go #1 that year, but Yakupov was at the top of many lists. I think a lot of teams would have taken him at #1, but he was the wrong pick for Edmonton at that time.

His development since being drafted was crap. He doesn't play with the same intensity as he did when he was drafted and was wrongly put on a pedestal from day one in Edmonton (probably because they were afraid of him not reporting to the minors and going to the KHL for more money).

A lot of teams would have - but many teams would not have.
That's my point - he wasn't the slam dunk BPA so at minimum the Oil should have prioritized position over BPA to fill a clear hole, instead of drafting a guy similar to others they already had.

Or to state in another way - I don't think you can defend the selection on the basis that he was clearly the BPA - because some of the holes in his game that are now being exposed - were concerns at the time.

I hated Yakupov even before the Oil selected him.