2016 NHL Draft

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by bucksmasher

I don't get why you think the next forward drafted is going to play with Jonny and mony. That line is good, it's scoring. The team needs line #2 to start performing. Hopefully Bennett or backlund and the next skilled forward can do that job.

Well I think Tkachuk's play style would work well with Monahan/Gaudreau. I think he'd be a monster fit with Bennett too.

But my point was that people are knocking Tkachuk for secondary assists, but we wouldn't be complaining if he racked up 40 secondary assists playing with Johnny/Mony. Right now Tkachuk plays with Marner/Dvorak who rip up the OHL. If you put him on our team then equivalent of Marner/Dvorak would be Johnny/Mony. The illustration was meant to mirror that. People say Tkachuk is being carried by Marner/Dvorak but others would argue that he adds as much to that line as the others. He's a great complimentary player.

I don't really care which line Dubois/Tkachuk end up on, they'd be a great fit with either line.

[PlayfulGenius]

Doesn't Tkachuk play LW??

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Doesn't Tkachuk play LW??

Makes me wonder if we'll ever give Johnny a try down the right side sometime.

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Makes me wonder if we'll ever give Johnny a try down the right side sometime.

They were doing that when Shinkaruk was playing on the top line.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The whole LW/RW thing is a little overblown by some. Most wingers can play both sides. Dubois as a left shot appears to prefer the right side but plays all 3 forward positions. Nylander plays both wings. I'm sure Gaudreau is smart enough to play RW and he was tried there was Ferland and Shinkaruk on LW. Laine is a right shooter and appears to prefer LW. Puljujarvi is a right shooter and appears to prefer RW. In my time of watching the Flames we've converted centres to wingers (Stillman, Colborne for example), we've converted LWers to RWers (Colborne, Ferland, Hudler, etc).

We'll draft the best prospect regardless of LW/RW, left shooter, right shooter. The coach can worry about which wingers to switch around when that problem presents itself.

[Vulcan]

Some players prefer skating on their off wing as it gives them a better shooting angle. This goes for both forwards and defencemen but there is a trade off in giving and accepting a pass.

[PlayfulGenius]

Sure, some players can move around...but some can't...it just seems silly to me to claim Tkachuk would be great fit with Mony and Johnny, when we don't know if he can play the right side...who knows, maybe it would work out great, but I'd assume he's be a better for with Bennett, where everyone gets to play their preferred position.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Sure, some players can move around...but some can't...it just seems silly to me to claim Tkachuk would be great fit with Mony and Johnny, when we don't know if he can play the right side...who knows, maybe it would work out great, but I'd assume he's be a better for with Bennett, where everyone gets to play their preferred position.

Well the coaching staff has been experimenting with Gaudreau on the RW. So if Tkachuk can't play RW then Gaudreau probably can. I don't think it would be a big issue. Tkachuk's style of game would fit that line very well.

Tkachuk on LW with Bennett? Sure. But then their RW is probably playing the off wing if its Colborne or Ferland who are both left shooters. Tkachuk's style of game would fit that line as well.

Any way you slice it we've got lefties playing the RW as Colborne, Frolik, Ferland, and Gaudreau have all played their off wing at times this year. Like I said it's a problem for the coaches. I don't think the scouts and GM's will be selecting players based on LW/RW or left shooters/right shooters.

[Vulcan]

After watching some of that game, I'd rather have Tyson Jost than McLeod.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The whole LW/RW thing is a little overblown by some. Most wingers can play both sides. Dubois as a left shot appears to prefer the right side but plays all 3 forward positions. Nylander plays both wings. I'm sure Gaudreau is smart enough to play RW and he was tried there was Ferland and Shinkaruk on LW. Laine is a right shooter and appears to prefer LW. Puljujarvi is a right shooter and appears to prefer RW. In my time of watching the Flames we've converted centres to wingers (Stillman, Colborne for example), we've converted LWers to RWers (Colborne, Ferland, Hudler, etc).

We'll draft the best prospect regardless of LW/RW, left shooter, right shooter. The coach can worry about which wingers to switch around when that problem presents itself.

So Tkachuck can switch positions but McLeod can't? I think the team drafts the player that meets the criteria they have used over the past few years. Character and skill come first. I would think interviews are going to mean a lot in this draft since so many players are so close in skill level. And I do believe that the team will address the right handed shot issue. They went out and did it on the blue line so I can't see them not doing it in the forward ranks.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

After watching some of that game, I'd rather have Tyson Jost than McLeod.

Would be an interesting player as well. Lots of speed and he has a knack for finding the net. I wouldn't be against picking him. Looks like he's headed to college though, so may be a player with a longer term development cycle.

[PlayfulGenius]

Does every player going the college route have the option of going UFA of they play all 4 years?...or does it depend on their birthdate?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Does every player going the college route have the option of going UFA of they play all 4 years?...or does it depend on their birthdate?

Every single player drafted has the option of going UFA after 4 years after they were first drafted whether they go the major junior, college, or Europe route.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Every single player drafted has the option of going UFA after 4 years after they were first drafted whether they go the major junior, college, or Europe route.

That was my assumption...thanks.

With that in mind, how come teams don't shy away from drafting college bound players?

I know it's not a frequent occurrence, but with there being so little difference in the likelihood of players developing, why have the pressure of that extra factor?

Nashville got burned this offseason (or so it appears)...as well it looks like the Canucks might, as well.

Seems like an unnecessary risk, to me.

Thoughts?

[Commandant]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

That was my assumption...thanks.

With that in mind, how come teams don't shy away from drafting college bound players?

I know it's not a frequent occurrence, but with there being so little difference in the likelihood of players developing, why have the pressure of that extra factor?

Nashville got burned this offseason (or so it appears)...as well it looks like the Canucks might, as well.

Seems like an unnecessary risk, to me.

Thoughts?

Because its not an extra risk

EVERY PLAYER can go free agent after four years. It is not something limited to college.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Commandant

Because its not an extra risk

EVERY PLAYER can go free agent after four years. It is not something limited to college.

That's BS...the college players aren't allowed to sign before completing (assuming they want to complete, which not everyone does, of course)...so, if they develop well during that time, they can decide to go UFA...junior players don't have the ability to develop that long without signing, at least its highly unlikely.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Commandant

Because its not an extra risk

EVERY PLAYER can go free agent after four years. It is not something limited to college.

Isn't it actually a bigger risk to lose a junior player since the player has to be signed after two years? The difference is that the player goes back into the draft. Maybe they should do the same for college players, force them back into the draft if they don't sign with the team that drafts them. It takes a little but of leverage away from them in that the lose the UFA status and monetizes the asset to the team that eventually gets them as opposed to getting a free asset.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Commandant

Because its not an extra risk

EVERY PLAYER can go free agent after four years. It is not something limited to college.

That is flat out obtuse.

Junior players can sign any time between day 1 and 4 years.

College players can't sign until their college career is over.

At that point, they are much closer to free agency, much closer to 27, and much more likely to know where they stand as a prospect.

There is no comparison between the situations and anyone that pretends there is is just being obtuse.

It is now happening annually with the NCAA. It virtually never happens with junior players.

[GranteedEV]

There may be more risk in college players but ultimately if the character is there they will sign (Jankowski, Gillies, and Gaudreau).

If the character isn't there, then even Junior kids (Baertschi) and Europe Pro kids (Erixon) can find a way to try and screw you over.

And honestly most better college prospects, like Jack Eichel and Kyle Connor, are going to be one-and-done. And a lot of the time they go that route because that's the natural American route or Junior A route, but there's also nothing stopping a team from signing a kid out of those leagues on draft day and turning them pro or assigning them to Major Junior. The best example is Zemgus Girgensons, signed out of the USHL and spent his Draft+1 season in the AHL. I'm sure the ECHL could be an option more-and-more as teams like the Flames take control over ECHL teams.

[sureLoss]

I do think you are seeing more and more NHL teams pressure prospects to drop the college route.

Blue Jackets had prospects Milano and Sherwood drop their college commitments and go to major junior. They got Werenski to leave college 9 months after drafting him. Prospect Peter Quenneville left college after playing 5 games in the NCAA.

In terms of risks it is pretty marginal compared to what other things could go wrong for a prospect. I am sure some teams consider it when they make their lists, but a lot of it probably is based on how the interview(s) with the prospect go and their gut feeling as to whether the kid would go that route.

Similar to the so called 'Russian factor'. The Russians usually drop due to the risk of them never coming over, or calling it quits to go back to the KHL. But interviews and potential upside can usually convince a team to take a Russian.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I do think you are seeing more and more NHL teams pressure prospects to drop the college route.

Blue Jackets had prospects Milano and Sherwood drop their college commitments and go to major junior. They got Werenski to leave college 9 months after drafting him. Prospect Peter Quenneville left college after playing 5 games in the NCAA.

In terms of risks it is pretty marginal compared to what other things could go wrong for a prospect. I am sure some teams consider it when they make their lists, but a lot of it probably is based on how the interview(s) with the prospect go and their gut feeling as to whether the kid would go that route.

Similar to the so called 'Russian factor'. The Russians usually drop due to the risk of them never coming over, or calling it quits to go back to the KHL. But interviews and potential upside can usually convince a team to take a Russian.

Strong point about how it's a marginal issue, relative to all potential things that can go wrong... My counter point is it only becomes a factor in the mostly costly of circumstances (ie. Player develops as well as could be expected)