[News] With the 34th overall pick the Flames select G Mason McDonald

[saXon]

[flamesfever]

Having a franchise centre is great, but you build from the goalie up. Most of our future success rides on the strength of our goaltending.

[Rick M.]

To have a playoff run you need a goalie who can steal games.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Were Joel Gistedt, Antoine Lafleur, Trevor Cann and Jeremy Smith great picks in the 2007 second round? 7 Years later none of these guys played a single game in the NHL. And those were the top 4 goalies drafted that year.

Again, goalies are unpredictable, take forever to develop, and are easy to trade for. You're never going to convince those of us who don't like drafting goalies early that it's a good idea. For every goalie you bring up that worked out, I can find 5 that didn't that were drafted in the same part of the draft.

I have trouble understanding the logic. Goalies are unpredictable, take forever to develop, but apparently you can just trade for a good one that a team lucked out to draft and worked forever to develop?

[SHOGUN]

Stats aren't anything to note about, but if the Flames felt strongly enough about him to pick him up at 34, I'm all for it. I love Gilles and Ortio but are far from a sure thing.

[Red John]

Watched Treliving interview after the first round last night.

Apparently the Flames were trying to move up into the late 1st round as they had their eye on a couple guys but luckily they were still on the board after the 1st.

Then they go and pick McDonald. Pretty easy to read between the lines and assume they wanted this guy all along and were ready to trade up if necessary to do it.

Not a lot of chatter about the goaltending group this year but by many accounts it was actually an underrated, strong crop so to get arguably the best one is great.

That's what happens when you finally start keeping your 2nd round picks and get to pick in the 30s.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Red John

Apparently the Flames were trying to move up into the late 1st round as they had their eye on a couple guys but luckily they were still on the board after the 1st.

Then they go and pick McDonald. Pretty easy to read between the lines and assume they wanted this guy all along and were ready to trade up if necessary to do it.

Yeah, and as has been noted, McDonald's name was stitched onto the jersey. Hard to think Treliving didn't get exactly who he wanted.

[tvp2003]

Prospect depth (read: competition) is a good thing. People always talk about Gillies but there's no guarantee he will hit and when that might happen. Having another quality prospect that can push him benefits both guys -- we only need to go .500 instead of 1.000 now to get an NHLer.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by _Q_

If there's a few things I've learned from CP in the last few years is

1) most posters on here know jack squat about players picked after 15, but everyone pretends they do.

2) when most posters are mad about a pick, generally it's a good pick.

You forgot 'people tend to have a desired group of picks and if that doesn't fall in line, pitch forks and torches are raised'.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I have trouble understanding the logic. Goalies are unpredictable, take forever to develop, but apparently you can just trade for a good one that a team lucked out to draft and worked forever to develop?

Yes?

All three of the Vezina nominated goalies this year were traded for.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Anduril

You forgot 'people tend to have a desired group of picks and if that doesn't fall in line, pitch forks and torches are raised'.

CP's board is infallible... never question the board!

[Red John]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Yes?

All three of the Vezina nominated goalies this year were traded for.

That's misleading. Rask was a 1st round pick who was traded for a Calder winning goalie at the time.

Varlamov was a 1st round pick who was traded for another 1st and 2nd.

Bishop was a 3rd rounder who developed nicely, ran into a logjam in his organization and was traded initially for a 2nd, then later for a promising young player at the time.

Would you seriously rather trade a 1st rounder to another team for a goalie than use a 2nd in a weak draft to get the best one available?

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Yes?

All three of the Vezina nominated goalies this year were traded for.

Weak argument. All the nominees in 2012 were drafted by and playing for their original team. The Vezina is an award to the goalie with the best season. Not necessarily meaning they are an elite goaltender in their career.

Bishop had #1 upside and played great this season. Hopefully he can continue that. Rask, doesn't really count since it was a goalie for goalie trade with the Leafs giving up a young Rask for a more developed Raycroft. Varlamov costed the Avalanche a 1st and a 2nd. Tough price to pay.

So either you can luck out by trading a solid youngster for a young goalie with potential, pay a hefty price or draft your own. As you said, goalies are so unpredictable. To me, that's all the more reason to have more solid prospects in your pool.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Yes?

All three of the Vezina nominated goalies this year were traded for.

Rask was traded basically right away after being drafted. Was not developed at the time Boston took him. As much of a gamble at that point than had Boston simply drafted him outright.

Bishop was a good commodity and required something useful in exchange. He came to Ottawa for a 2nd round pick, so why wouldn't it be worth drafting a goalie for a 2nd round pick? By the time he got traded to TB he was a known commodity and commanded a higher price. So we shouldn't draft goalies but wait until we're forced to give up a good forward prospect (which, obviously, grow on trees?)...

Varlamov was drafted by the Capitals, developed, and then traded for a 1st and 2nd round pick. That's a much heavier price than the 2nd round pick that people are losing their heads over here.


You can make these types of stories for all positions from the draft. It's not remotely a convincing argument not to take a goalie in the first X rounds. The Flames have a much poorer drafting record of non-goalie position players in higher rounds, so why aren't we losing our heads over that?

I say let the kid develop rather than lamenting the pick right away because of some non-empirical bias.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Red John

That's misleading. Rask was a 1st round pick who was traded for a Calder winning goalie at the time.

Varlamov was a 1st round pick who was traded for another 1st and 2nd.

Bishop was a 3rd rounder who developed nicely, ran into a logjam in his organization and was traded initially for a 2nd, then later for a promising young player at the time.

Would you seriously rather trade a 1st rounder to another team for a goalie than use a 2nd in a weak draft to get the best one available?

Again, yes. You're trading for a players that are fully developed or very close to ready instead of a player who is a long shot. Let other teams do all the development work. There are decent goalies on the trade market at all times.

It's just math to me. A few years ago I did a bunch of research on how often a draft pick becomes a player. A skater picked from 31 to 45 has about a 29% chance of becoming a 'real' NHL player (which I defined as 300+ games played). A goalie picked from 31 to 45 had around an 18% chance of playing 100 NHL games.

From the sounds of it, we got the best goalie prospect available this year. I really hope he becomes a star for us. I just think the math is better that one of the best available remaining dmen has a higher chance of being an NHL player.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Red John

Watched Treliving interview after the first round last night.

Apparently the Flames were trying to move up into the late 1st round as they had their eye on a couple guys but luckily they were still on the board after the 1st.

Then they go and pick McDonald. Pretty easy to read between the lines and assume they wanted this guy all along and were ready to trade up if necessary to do it.

Not a lot of chatter about the goaltending group this year but by many accounts it was actually an underrated, strong crop so to get arguably the best one is great.

That's what happens when you finally start keeping your 2nd round picks and get to pick in the 30s.

More likely they wanted Lemieux or Barbashev but they were gone before we picked. Its possible they had McDonald ranked in the first round and tried to trade up to get him. But it seems a bit unlikely as the chances of him being picked before 34 are pretty slim.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Again, yes. You're trading for a players that are fully developed or very close to ready instead of a player who is a long shot. Let other teams do all the development work. There are decent goalies on the trade market at all times.

And if this was the case, why have we had such trouble finding one the last 2-3 years? It was clear that Kipper's backups were subpar, and at the beginning of the year neither Ramo or Berra were lights out. Why didn't we just pick up a good one instead?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Again, yes. You're trading for a players that are fully developed or very close to ready instead of a player who is a long shot. Let other teams do all the development work. There are decent goalies on the trade market at all times.

It's just math to me. A few years ago I did a bunch of research on how often a draft pick becomes a player. A skater picked from 31 to 45 has about a 29% chance of becoming a 'real' NHL player (which I defined as 300+ games played). A goalie picked from 31 to 45 had around an 18% chance of playing 100 NHL games.

From the sounds of it, we got the best goalie prospect available this year. I really hope he becomes a star for us. I just think the math is better that one of the best available remaining dmen has a higher chance of being an NHL player.

That is all well and good - and valid.

However, there is also the fact that market conditions ebb and flow. One year, no one takes goalies until the 4th round, another year, it starts in the 1st round. You have to be cognizant of that and react accordingly.

Also, goaltending was a definite source of concern this year with only 3 legitimate prospects in the entire system. They wanted to make sure they got their guy.

And, even though my general rule is no goalies before the 3rd round,I have absolutely no problem with that.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Rask was traded basically right away after being drafted. Was not developed at the time Boston took him. As much of a gamble at that point than had Boston simply drafted him outright.

Bishop was a good commodity and required something useful in exchange. He came to Ottawa for a 2nd round pick, so why wouldn't it be worth drafting a goalie for a 2nd round pick? By the time he got traded to TB he was a known commodity and commanded a higher price. So we shouldn't draft goalies but wait until we're forced to give up a good forward prospect (which, obviously, grow on trees?)...

Varlamov was drafted by the Capitals, developed, and then traded for a 1st and 2nd round pick. That's a much heavier price than the 2nd round pick that people are losing their heads over here.


You can make these types of stories for all positions from the draft. It's not remotely a convincing argument not to take a goalie in the first X rounds. The Flames have a much poorer drafting record of non-goalie position players in higher rounds, so why aren't we losing our heads over that?

I say let the kid develop rather than lamenting the pick right away because of some non-empirical bias.

I provided some empirical data in the post below yours. Goalies drafted in the first and second round become NHL players less often than skaters. By the 4th round both goalies and skaters become NHL players about 10% of the time, so I would rather take my chances goalies then. Or trade for an already developed goalie when the time comes that we need one.

Also, without question, skaters develop more quickly that goalies. A goalie is likely 4 to 6 years out from contributing to the NHL team. I hope we're a playoff team or even a contender in less than 6 years. This likely means we either already need an elite goalie in the system or will have to trade for one anyway.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

And if this was the case, why have we had such trouble finding one the last 2-3 years? It was clear that Kipper's backups were subpar, and at the beginning of the year neither Ramo or Berra were lights out. Why didn't we just pick up a good one instead?

Maybe we did? Ramo seems like he might be a legit NHL goalie.