Would you be willing to trade down in this draft?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Wolven

If there are 5 equally talented players available at the 15th pick then the Flames should take advantage of the opportunity to select the player that best fits organizational need (second order of operations). It is better to be in the drivers seat to make that decision than to give control of our choice to the other GMs.

Personally, I count 4D and 2RW I would not be disappointed in with the Flames picking at 15. All of them fit organizational need and at least one of them will be available at 20.

Now my list doesn't necessarily match the Flames list, but if it did, that scenario says you can consider trading back.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Personally, I count 4D and 2RW I would not be disappointed in with the Flames picking at 15. All of them fit organizational need and at least one of them will be available at 20.

Now my list doesn't necessarily match the Flames list, but if it did, that scenario says you can consider trading back.

I'd be perfectly fine with any of Roy, Chabot, Zboril, Kylington, Sprong, konecny and Boeser and all of those guys should be available at 15, so sliding back a bit might work.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Personally, I count 4D and 2RW I would not be disappointed in with the Flames picking at 15. All of them fit organizational need and at least one of them will be available at 20.

Now my list doesn't necessarily match the Flames list, but if it did, that scenario says you can consider trading back.

Yep, I'm with you. I'd be willing to trade down a few spots if a team wanted to overpay. Buffalo for example giving us 51st OA would be quite fine with me.

[codynw]

If anything, I would prefer to see them stay at 15th but still acquire another 1st somehow.

[Red Menace]

Never say never....
I doubt they will, but if the right offer comes along it may well be worth it.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

If they feel like they can get a player at the same tier and pick up an additional asset, why not? My sense is that they won't get too worked up about picking a Forward or Defense at 15, just get the guy they like the best, or move down if they think they can still get that guy. I would say that at some point perhaps they would have too many picks and would likely consider a move up to pick up a low first, high second, which would also be fine with me.

[Dogbert]

If they have a player in mind at 15, and they determine he's likely to be available in the 18-21 range, why wouldn't they trade down? You get the player you want and some extra assets to boot.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by codynw

If anything, I would prefer to see them stay at 15th but still acquire another 1st somehow.

I would love for us to find a way to acquire Buffalo's 2nd. Get 1st crack on the 2nd round.

[Huntingwhale]

I don't really know much about the players in the draft so I'm not going to vote. But I will say this. Many are projecting this draft to be as deep the '03 draft. Looking back at how many stars emerged from a draft like that, would you want 1 pick at our position (15) or 2 picks? Anaheim did quite well picking 2 stars at 19 & 28. Many good players were picked in the 2nd round.

IF (and that's a big IF) this draft is as good as the '03 draft, then I would certainly be on board with trading down and getting an extra pick. The '03 draft produced some stars in the 2nd round.

Again, no guarantee that this draft will be as good, and we won't really know for another 10 years how they compare. But IF management believes that the draft is that deep, then I'm all for trading down and getting more picks. 2 star players > 1 star player

[cannon7]

Someone is gona fall out of the top ten, the only question is how far. For that reason alone I would stay at #15 or trade up if possible.

[SofaProfessor]

These polls always make me laugh. In my opinion it's impossible to say yes or no definitively. Any number of scenarios could arise where trading down makes sense. On the flip side; there is probably a greater chance of none of those scenarios arise and picking the best player available is the best decision. I don't know how anyone can answer anything other than "maybe" until you know how the draft is shaping up as teams ahead of the Flames pick and offers roll in (or, don't roll in, as may be the case).

[Fire]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I wouldn't be upset if the Flames traded down, you can never have enough picks.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Teams do have a 50 contract limit and limited room on the farm team for players. I would prefer they keep the pick and go for quality over quantity.

[handgroen]

the only trade down possibility that gets me excited is a potential swap with the sabres.

to Buffalo:
15th OA
45th OA

to Calgary:
21st OA
31st OA

move down 6 picks in the first round and move up 14 picks in the second.

depending on who rises and falls you could come away with something like roy(29th on bob's list), and kylington(24th on Bob's list). Or Chabot (25th on bob's list) and Boeser (26th on bob's list). no chance of that w/o moving down from 45th.

furthermore, the players they've been scouting for the 45th pick may still be available @ 52nd or 53rd

[Daradon]

With the way the draft looks this year at 15-25 it would be a good idea for most teams. However, we already have 3 second round picks and 2 thirds don't we? I can't imagine adding any extra picks helps us.

I would just take the best at 15 based on our needs, which I would think would be a d-man. Trading up might work too, if adding a second round pick gets us a player we really like. I don't see the quality changing much jumping up 3-4 spots, but if it's a guy we really want and feel like we have a good scouting report on him, I wouldn't be against that. But I don't really see that happening either.

We probably stay as we are with our picks.

[DropIt]

so many factors that needed to be considered, but if your 'ledge' has 4-5 players still on it. when it comes to your pick and you can nab an additional 2nd round pick you do it

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fire

I don't think that's necessarily true. Teams do have a 50 contract limit and limited room on the farm team for players. I would prefer they keep the pick and go for quality over quantity.

I agree with this. For development, you can't just load up on average prospects in one given year. You need to stagger them a little to have sustainable growth.

You also really need to nab a blue chipper once in a while and it is simply easier to do earlier in the draft. It is so extremely rare nowadays for a core type of player to become a free agent... you have to draft them.

I guess I just don't buy the "ledge" argument. I have trouble believing that a team would have 5 or so prospects all ranked exactly equal. It might come down to minor differences or gut feelings, but if pressed, I am sure they could rank those 5 against each other.

This is exactly the kind of draft that you want to trade up in if anything. I find it more palatable to trade down in weaker drafts where you just want to throw a bunch of darts at the wall and hope to hit something. In a draft like this one, I think there is a good case to be made for drafting with precision.

[gilligans_off]

I can't remember the last time trading down has worked out in the Flames favor. Keep with what we have.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

I can't remember the last time trading down has worked out in the Flames favor. Keep with what we have.

No kidding. It hurts to think about how many times this screwed us over. Yet every year the same convo pops up.

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If you can honestly say you would be happy with 5 or more of the prospects projected to be at 15, then how can you say you wouldn't consider trading down?

Obviously depends on who is available (i.e. if anyone slips out of the top 10) and what the return would be.

Because there is a good chance you will see a guy you had ranked 8-10 available there. But that guy won't be at 20.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by saillias

No kidding. It hurts to think about how many times this screwed us over. Yet every year the same convo pops up.



Because there is a good chance you will see a guy you had ranked 8-10 available there. But that guy won't be at 20.

Well obviously if there is ONLY one guy who is clearly above the rest you don't trade down. I would think that would be painfully obvious.

[Red Menace]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

I can't remember the last time trading down has worked out in the Flames favor. Keep with what we have.

I suppose it was 2007, when we traded down from 18 to get STL's 24th and 70th.
They picked Ian Cole, we got Backlund and John Negrin.
Though I suppose you could argue that the trade down part didn't really work as the extra asset was a bust. We could have just picked Backs at 18 and had the same result.

We also traded down in 2009 from 20 to get NJ's 23rd and 84th.
NJ picked Josefson and we got the infamous Tim Erixon, later in the day we used the 84th pick to trade up and pick Ryan Howse.
I suppose Erixon is a better NHL asset than Josefson, and we did flip him for more assets...so I suppose that technically worked out too.