this is where i think you are subtly adjusting your argument to suit you narrative.... Eberle's contract sucked off the hop and is a case of Oilers Oilering... Kessel was a malcontent who cashed in early in his career.
How much do you think Johnny Hockey would fetch on the open market? or Drouin? or Kucherov?
The draft is a crapshoot, even for big players and defensemen, there is now guarantee they make it either.
You can make the argument that wingers are the most over rated player set when you cherry pick wingers that are over rated... Your argument does hold much water when you actually substitute wingers that have similar value to #2 DMen...
Is a franchise DMan more valuable than franchise winger? I can see arguments both ways... but the discussion starts when you at least make an attempt for an apples to apples discussion.
I still don't think Gaudreau, Drouin or Kucherov are worth as much as a franchise centre or a top pairing d-man. But yes, those are more attractive players overall.
I used Kessel and Eberle because those guys are good examples of goal scoring wingers who got paid and then hurt their teams ability to compete because of how much of the cap they take up. I've thought similarly in the past about the deals that Kovalchuk signed, Nash had in CBJ, Heatley, etc. A lot of times the best goal scoring wingers get paid huge and in a cap system the amount you have to pay them ends up being more than how much they actually drive your team.
My point is that it is easier to be a contender if you have elite centres and elite defensemen. And in a cap system there's only so much money to go around so spending a ton on wingers limits your ability to pay your goalies, centres and defensemen. I think history has shown that elite wingers rarely lead their teams anywhere. Look at the top goal scoring wingers of the last decade and add up how many cups they have. It's pretty telling. Then do the same for franchise centres and franchise d-men and its obvious what type of player you should prioritize in the cap system.
Not everybody will agree. Goal scoring is sexy. Goal scoring wingers are essential in pools but IMO less essential for actually contending for a cup. It's just my philosophy after I've watched the various 40-50 goal scorers struggle to lead their teams anywhere over the last 20 years of watching hockey. Heck here we had Iginla score 50 one year where we missed the playoffs IIRC. We struggled to compete without a franchise centre and without a franchise dman.
IMO you don't because wing is the least important position. Eberle is an example for me. Puts up good numbers, gets his 6 million and now can the Oilers trade him for what they need, a young top 3 defenceman? Nope, defencemen are way more valuable than an averaged sized soft goal scoring winger. So Eberle may be really hard to trade and is now eating up a large percentage of EDM's cap.
Phil Kessel is one of the top goal scoring wingers in the league, made 8 million and had be dumped with salary retained to get him off the cap. They got an okay return but not as much as you'd get if he was a franchise centre or top 3 dman. Again average size elite goal scoring winger and he wasn't the solution in TOR.
It's just my hockey philosophy that goal scoring wingers are one of the least valuable assets of the elite assets and often end up giving you cap problems.
Clayton Keller is a centre though. And if you draft him, your centres under 22 are Monahan, Bennett, Jankowski and Keller. You let three guys fight it out for #2C, put the guy that plays best with the #2C on the wing, and let the 3rd guy anchor your 3rd line.
When the Bruins won it all, they did it with Bergeron (6 ft 1" 195lb) and Krejci (6ft 186lb) as their top 2 centres.
Toews is 6 ft 2 listed at 201. Last year, their #2C was 6ft 200 lb Brad Richards.
Average sized human beings who are really good at hockey. That's the key.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
I hope we aren't the team at the top of the draft that gets mesmerized by size. If you're drafting in the mid-late 1st, sure, but top 10? Have to go with raw skill and IQ, all the way.
Gaudreau, Kane, Johnson, Kucherov, Crosby, etc, all sub-6ft game changers. It's more than okay to have a couple of those guys on the same team.
Mangiapane hasn't accomplished anything yet, so we shouldn't let his role in our system impact any of our decision making in the draft(s).
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
I kinda want Keller now just because it seems like he could be the biggest game breaker available.. Also it would be pretty unique to have a team with two dominant little guys..
I hope we aren't the team at the top of the draft that gets mesmerized by size. If you're drafting in the mid-late 1st, sure, but top 10? Have to go with raw skill and IQ, all the way.
Gaudreau, Kane, Johnson, Kucherov, Crosby, etc, all sub-6ft game changers. It's more than okay to have a couple of those guys on the same team.
Mangiapane hasn't accomplished anything yet, so we shouldn't let his role in our system impact any of our decision making in the draft(s).
I don't think the Flames will be a team mesmerized by size. None of Kylington, Mangiapane, Hickey, even Bennett are particularly huge and bruising. They just tried to pick the best guy.
If they do prefer Dubois or Brown at 6, it will be because of the skill and size they bring to the table. There is a false narrative floating around that the choice between Brown and Keller is one of skill vs. size. They both have skill and neither play a physical game. It is simply a projection as to how the scouts think their game will project in the pros.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
After watching that not sure I would have any issues with drafting Brown. The vision, skating, skill, and size combo is something that you rarely find in a player.
If he dropped because of questions of his "drive" and "motor" I would take it, especially because he seemed to correct that in the last quarter of the season and into the U-18s. Imagine if he kept all those skill traits and actually used his size to dominate physically, would be a true game changer.
Could be an identical story to when Getzlaf dropped in 2003 in that case.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
Pushes for the consensus argument and that Calgary needs the forward depth so it will come down to Tkachuk, Dubois, or Nylander
It makes a very poor argument as far as calling Brown or Keller "off the board" picks compared to Nylander. Nylander is an unspectacular prospect who has done nothing to put himself ahead of Brown/Keller/Jost IMO. Nylander deserves to be in the mix, but not on a different tier.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 05-13-2016 at 04:17 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Certain people with size just don't tend to use it or a while, they have to really introduce it into their game slowly. But it can be done; this past year I've seen bigger players on our team (nameably Dougie and Colborne) who have started to play more physical in front of the net and on the boards. So it isn't a reach to say Brown can be taught the same.
Not every player can just flip a switch and hit everything in sight when told to like Regehr, but they can still be taught how to use their size and strength properly.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
Pushes for the consensus argument and that Calgary needs the forward depth so it will come down to Tkachuk, Dubois, or Nylander
Thanks for this, but I think the reasoning is faulty in that article. If the Flames see a ledge at 6, it is because of their list; their scouting. Not on the basis of consensus lists. That doesn't make sense. Also the automatic assumption that the pick must be a forward is faulty. Obviously I get the need for a forward, but that shouldn't preclude the idea that one of the Flames' top 6 is a D man.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
The more I look at this draft the more I feel like 6 to about 15 is pretty close in terms of quality (assuming Tkachuk and Dubois are gone at 6) and we should try to get two picks in the top 15.
Means you could get two of Jost, Keller, Brown, Mcleod, Sergachev, Chychrun, Fabbro, Bean, or Juolevi.
This team has lots of depth prospects and a new infusion of high end talent would really round out the prospect base.
We could trade 6 + 95 to Carolina for 13 & 21. Carolina looks to move up to get one of the big 3 defensemen or Nylander.
Then trade 21 and 65 for Minnesota's pick at 15, Minnesota doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd rounder currently so it makes sense for them.
Would leave the Flames with 13, 15, 35, 53, 55 in the first two rounds, plus they would still have ammo to move back up from 15 into the 9/10/11 range if they preferred a guy at that number (technically 15 + 53 should be able to get you into the 10/11 range).
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 05-13-2016 at 04:27 PM.
Certain people with size just don't tend to use it or a while, they have to really introduce it into their game slowly. But it can be done; this past year I've seen bigger players on our team (nameably Dougie and Colborne) who have started to play more physical in front of the net and on the boards. So it isn't a reach to say Brown can be taught the same.
Not every player can just flip a switch and hit everything in sight when told to like Regehr, but they can still be taught how to use their size and strength properly.
Logan Brown's stats are actually perfectly fine as far as successful taller 17 year old forwards from the CHL go, too, so it's not like he's failing to produce:
Former Columbus Blue Jackets And Other Big Forwards
The three guys omitted from that list are Spezza/LeCavalier who were a tier above this group at that age; and Jeff Carter, who was a full tier below.
The questions about Brown aren't his skating, production or skill (well, other than he doesn't appear as absolutely skilled as Keller IMO) - they seem to be how long it'll take to get his his motor / shift-to-shift consistency / two-way play /willingness to shoot - things of that sort up to an NHL level. If the Flames scouts see enough progression in this area to think he can develop fine - then he's a very good gamble. With his mobility he can keep up with Bennett just fine. If not however, then you do not take him because players who lack motor will always be frustrating trade bait.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 05-13-2016 at 04:47 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Montreal is supposedly interested in jumping into the top six to get a crack at Dubois. Would the Flames consider dropping down to #9 if the Canadiens sent Fucale along with the 9th? Would Calgary give up the pick of they sent Fucale and McCarron? Lots of risk, but does address two organizational needs.
Montreal is supposedly interested in jumping into the top six to get a crack at Dubois. Would the Flames consider dropping down to #9 if the Canadiens sent Fucale along with the 9th? Would Calgary give up the pick of they sent Fucale and McCarron? Lots of risk, but does address two organizational needs.
Hell Naw.
If Dubois is there we take him. He can easily be the talent-peer Bennett needs.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Montreal is supposedly interested in jumping into the top six to get a crack at Dubois. Would the Flames consider dropping down to #9 if the Canadiens sent Fucale along with the 9th? Would Calgary give up the pick of they sent Fucale and McCarron? Lots of risk, but does address two organizational needs.
I really doubt Dubois is there at 6. If Montreal wants Dubois, they will trade for #4 IMO. If he was there, I would rather the Flames just pick him even if your proposal is somewhat tempting.
If Montreal want Dubois, they trade with Edmonton. Guaranteed their guy. Unless there's someone itching to get nylander, perhaps tkachuk (if available) or their choice of the d guys, we're picking at 6.
Thanks for this, but I think the reasoning is faulty in that article. If the Flames see a ledge at 6, it is because of their list; their scouting. Not on the basis of consensus lists. That doesn't make sense. Also the automatic assumption that the pick must be a forward is faulty. Obviously I get the need for a forward, but that shouldn't preclude the idea that one of the Flames' top 6 is a D man.
Yep. Yet another example of a consensus list misleading someone into thinking they know the tiers when it isn't clear at all. Their consensus list that was built doesn't include Craig Button or Redline Report, arguably better lists than a bunch of the ones they did include (Damien Cox?!?)
Lately we've got both Benning and Chiarelli talking pretty openly about how they see the top of the draft. The names that both GMs have mentioned include Tkachuk, Dubois, Brown and 2-4 defensemen. While its perfectly conceivable that the Flames list disagrees with theirs or varies I still think what they've said about the top end of this draft holds a lot more weight than what some of these amateur scouting services think. These are GM's looking for foundational players and it seems a specific subset of the draft is viewed as such by them.
IMO based on what we've heard from the GM's picking ahead of us and what we know of Calgary's management philosophy some of the most likely names to be in the 4-8 range for the Flames are Tkachuk, Dubois, Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev, Brown. I think those players project to be the most valuable assets down the line. I'd be surprised if we end up with somebody not on that list. That said the draft can surprise and its dangerous to think in absolutes.
I think Treliving values top end d-men more than your average fan and that the defenseman class is being underrated and undervalued because of the variance surrounding it. The variance of the d-men rankings mean they drop on consensus lists but some of these guys are being ranked top 5-6 in the draft by certain scouts. I think the Flames are more likely to have d-men high than some of the other teams in the league because I think they value defensemen quite highly. Treliving as a former defenseman is going to be biased somewhat towards them IMO. I don't think they'll drop d-men or overlook d-men just because we don't have a glaring need there like some fans and some fan websites are doing.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 05-13-2016 at 04:33 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Depends how you define it. Had the chance to watch a full game of Tkachuk's last night. He's a power forward in the sense that he wins board battles, he's always crashing the net, he's always looking to screen the goalie. If you consider a power forward someone who throws huge hits every chance he gets and fights a lot then that's not necessarily his game. But he is very strong, protects the puck well and has a real greasy, grindy style around the net. Combine that with excellent puck handling, hockey IQ, vision and finishing.
If we wanna remove the preconceived notions around the word power forward then think about it like this. Tkachuk is a skilled forward with good strength who plays gritty behind the net, in front of the net and all around the net. He's highly skilled but does all the dirty work on his line.
As far as comparing him to his Dad I think Matthew is far more offensively skilled overall. His puck handling and playmaking are far better than his Dad's. He might not be quite as mean and physical overall but he'll shove you right back.
I agree with all of the above. I also think it is a mute point unless we are trading up somehow. He will be gone at 4.
He will be way better than Colborne but it would be very unlikelu he will be close to Thornton either (one of the best ever after his career is done).
I'd be okay with trading down a bit for Keller. Brown's upside is massive though. Think more Benn or Brent Burns rather than Colborne. He doesn't play like them, I merely mean in terms of impact. With his size, skating and skill combo he'd be very hard to stop. He's gonna be a 2nd line center at worst.
As someone who has seen him play quite a bit I strongly disagree. I will be shocked if Brown ends up as anything greater than a 3rd line player.
The Following User Says Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
