What is the most you would give up for 3rd OA?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

And so what if he does? He is still not likely to be significantly better than whomever we pick at 6, not worth the cost of a 2nd line 2-way center. You can't convince me otherwise. You like many others are blinded by the idea of a shiny new top 3 pick and willing to throw away another season to get it.

It depends on how good you feel Backlund is as a player. I don't see him as a second line center, but as one of the best 3rd line centers. I'm not trashing Backlund when I say that if he's playing on your second line, then you have a problem with not having enough talent in your organization. Evidence being that the Flames were crap this season and he was being used mostly on the 2nd line. No depth or better options at the ready. Selling Backlund now, would also be selling high as he likely won't repeat his production as Bennett will be the 2nd line center from now on.

I'm not being blinded by a shiny new object. I've been spending most of my time arguing for trading down if anything because why not get additional assets when you have the option of getting basically identical players at 6, 8, or 10. The main reasons for arguing in this case to move up is three fold. 1, the Flames have no high quality right shooting players in the organization. That can also be addressed by getting Nylander though, which I do concede. 2, they have no impact players outside of Monahan that are over 6'1" in the organization with the slim possibility that Jankowski hits the highest level of his potential. 3, they haven't had a legit power forward in the organization since Jarome.

My arguing for #3 is that the two things that Puljujarvi bring that any of the players available at #6 are simply not available with #6 or any of the subsequent picks that are likely to be available to us either this year or in years to come. Getting power forwards is rare and they usually cost a boat load. The only other thing that is rare to come by is offensive defensemen that are over 6-3, like getting Hamilton last year. I honestly think that Kyle Connor (who Calgary would have picked at 15) plus the two players Boston picked in round two will eventually be better as a group than Hamilton is or will be. However, using multiple assets to get that rare young defenseman was the right choice. I feel the exact same way about the possibility of getting Puljujarvi. Players like him simply do not come along often.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

And so what if he does? He is still not likely to be significantly better than whomever we pick at 6, not worth the cost of a 2nd line 2-way center. You can't convince me otherwise. You like many others are blinded by the idea of a shiny new top 3 pick and willing to throw away another season to get it.

Do you think Backlund will re-sign with this team after his current contact? Would you want him to if it was in excess of $5.0-5.5m over 6 or so years? Because that is what we are looking at come July 1st, 2017 after he puts up 40-47+ points again. Poor man's Derek Stepan or hell, Derek Stepan in another universe.

If the answer is no, then BT needs to start planting the seed to trade Backlund yesterday IMO. Execute the trade on his terms but hopefully BT knows whether or not he will be saving $$ for Backlund to be one of the top 4-5 paid players on the team.

I should preface that I love Backlund but this team is not a contender and should still be analyzing everything in a forward thinking fashion. Times a ticking on Mr. Backlund unfortunately.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Evidence being that the Flames were crap this season and he was being used mostly on the 2nd line.

This is such an irritating concept that people continue to suggest.

Our 2nd line was by far our best line this season.

It was an effective second line in the NHL regardless of whether or not Backlund is a fancy name who puts up big individual point totals.

Our team sucked despite that one line, not because of it.

Your logic is equal to the following:

The Coyotes suck, therefore Oliver Ekman Larsson is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Canadiens suck, therefore PK Subban is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Senators suck, therefore Erik Karlsson is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Oilers suck, therefore Connor McDavid is not an elite talent.
The Canucks suck, therefore Edler-Tanev is a crappy defense pairing that couldn't stop Matt Stajan and Brandon Bollig.
The Blue Jackets suck, therefore Bobrovsky/Korpisalo is a terrible goaltending situation.
The Jets suck, therefore Ehlers-Scheifele-Wheeler is a terrible 1st line.
The St. Louis Blues scored less goals than the Calgary Flames, therefore the St. Louis Blues are not very good.


You're one of my favorite posters but sorry, that form of logic is just plain lazy.

Evidence of Backlund being a poor second line center would have to examine only his line's effectiveness as a second line, not the effectiveness of the second line plus three other lines on the team he played on. He can't do anything about the first line's inability to establish and hold the zone on the road, or the third line's inability to do anything ever, or the fourth line's inability to push the tempo and instead resorting to dump-and-change tactics.

[1qqaaz]

3rd Overall Picks in last 20 Years

2015 Dylan Strome
2014 Leon Draisaitl
2013 Jonathan Drouin
2012 Alex Galchenyuk
2011 Jonathan Huberdeau
2010 Erik Gudbranson
2009 Matt Duchene
2008 Zach Bogosian
2007 Kyle Turris
2006 Jonathan Toews
2005 Jack Johnson
2004 Cam Barker
2003 Nathan Horton
2002 Jay Bouwmeester
2001 Alexandr Svitov
2000 Marian Gaborik
1999 Henrik Sedin
1998 Brad Stuart
1997 Olli Jokinen
1996 J.P. Dumont

6th Overall Picks in last 20 Years

2015 Pavel Zacha
2014 Jake Virtanen
2013 Sean Monahan
2012 Hampus Lindholm
2011 Mika Zibanejad
2010 Brett Connolly
2009 Oliver Ekman-Larsson
2008 Nikita Filatov
2007 Sam Gagner
2006 Derick Brassard
2005 Gilbert Brule
2004 Al Montoya
2003 Milan Michalek
2002 Scottie Upshall
2001 Mikko Koivu
2000 Scott Hartnell
1999 Brian Finley
1998 Rico Fata
1997 Daniel Tkaczuk
1996 Boyd Devereaux

Players in the red are debatebly "busts".

Busts:
3rd Overall:2
6th Overall: 7

Players in the green are superstars.

Superstars:
3rd Overall: 4
6th Overall: 1

Total Points:
3rd Overall: 6357
6th Overall: 4285

So the 6th pick has more than triple the chance of being a bust. The 3rd overall pick has more than triple the chance of being a superstar. The 3rd overall picks have 50% more points. Based on history, it's a much, much better pick. It's not even remotely close in any aspect. As long as it doesn't cost a main member of our young core, moving up is definitely worth it. Backlund, Frolik, Colborne, any pick, any non-Gillies prospect, doesn't matter. Get'er done.

This year has a definite top 3, and a clear ledge after 5. This year is as good as any if moving up is possible.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It depends on how good you feel Backlund is as a player. I don't see him as a second line center, but as one of the best 3rd line centers. I'm not trashing Backlund when I say that if he's playing on your second line, then you have a problem with not having enough talent in your organization. Evidence being that the Flames were crap this season and he was being used mostly on the 2nd line. No depth or better options at the ready. Selling Backlund now, would also be selling high as he likely won't repeat his production as Bennett will be the 2nd line center from now on.

I'm not being blinded by a shiny new object. I've been spending most of my time arguing for trading down if anything because why not get additional assets when you have the option of getting basically identical players at 6, 8, or 10. The main reasons for arguing in this case to move up is three fold. 1, the Flames have no high quality right shooting players in the organization. That can also be addressed by getting Nylander though, which I do concede. 2, they have no impact players outside of Monahan that are over 6'1" in the organization with the slim possibility that Jankowski hits the highest level of his potential. 3, they haven't had a legit power forward in the organization since Jarome.

My arguing for #3 is that the two things that Puljujarvi bring that any of the players available at #6 are simply not available with #6 or any of the subsequent picks that are likely to be available to us either this year or in years to come. Getting power forwards is rare and they usually cost a boat load. The only other thing that is rare to come by is offensive defensemen that are over 6-3, like getting Hamilton last year. I honestly think that Kyle Connor (who Calgary would have picked at 15) plus the two players Boston picked in round two will eventually be better as a group than Hamilton is or will be. However, using multiple assets to get that rare young defenseman was the right choice. I feel the exact same way about the possibility of getting Puljujarvi. Players like him simply do not come along often.

Like it or not, this day in age 0.5 points per game is a 2nd line player. I think people forget how low scoring really is in the league; so he is indeed a second line center. But the fact of the matter is defensively speaking he is the best we have and while I am a fan of Colborne he is not nearly as effective at center and is certainly not good enough defensively to replace Backlund. The biggest problem with the Flames is not scoring goals, it is preventing them, so trading your best defensive center for what very easily could be a marginal upgrade makes no sense.

I also don't think the Flames need another elite offensive talent, sure it would be nice but you are kidding yourself if you think it is a necessity. Should Bennett pan out like we all think he will, our need is players of 2nd line ability. If we draft Puljujarvi and both he and Bennett turn out then we will be in a situation where we can't afford to pay all these kids anyways.

And yeah we get it you think Puljujarvi is an amazing talent, players like him don't come around very often. If I hadn't heard that about every top 10 pick for the last 30 years I might actually take it more seriously. But each and every year top prospects getting pumped up to be the next coming of Jesus and more often than not they are very good players but not anywhere near the star they were projected to be in their draft year.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Do you think Backlund will re-sign with this team after his current contact? Would you want him to if it was in excess of $5.0-5.5m over 6 or so years? Because that is what we are looking at come July 1st, 2017 after he puts up 40-47+ points again. Poor man's Derek Stepan or hell, Derek Stepan in another universe.

If the answer is no, then BT needs to start planting the seed to trade Backlund yesterday IMO. Execute the trade on his terms but hopefully BT knows whether or not he will be saving $$ for Backlund to be one of the top 4-5 paid players on the team.

I should preface that I love Backlund but this team is not a contender and should still be analyzing everything in a forward thinking fashion. Times a ticking on Mr. Backlund unfortunately.

I have no reason to think Backlund won't re-siign with the Flames. I am also not sure why you think he will certainly get 5-5.5 either, if he stays healthy he will probably get in the 4-4.5 range like Frolik.

And should the time come to trade Backlund you do it then. You don't throw him in a trade for magic beans because he might be too good and want more money in 2 years. That is the absolute stupidest reason to make this kind of trade. Fact of the matter is this idea is trading a 2nd line center and a potential top 6 forward/top 4 defenseman for a potential top 6 forward.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

This is such an irritating concept that people continue to suggest.

Our 2nd line was by far our best line this season.

It was an effective second line in the NHL regardless of whether or not Backlund is a fancy name who puts up big individual point totals.

Yes, our second line was our best in terms of overall play most games due to the weakness of the first line on the road. However, if the Flames are going to be a contending team like Chicago or Los Angeles was in past seasons, the rough second line of Colborne-Backlund-Frolik is not of a high enough quality to fill those positions. A player can be talented, but still not be good enough for the job necessary.

The Flames second line needs to consist of players like Sharp or Hossa, not Colborne. The main centers were Toews/Ladd (in 09) Kopitar/Richards for the Kings, or Monahan Bennett moving forward. If you want to stand out as a contender, you need top players in top positions. If you don't have that, you're not going to win the Stanley cup. The Penguins just won with Crosby/Malkin/Kessel along with good supporting players. San Jose got there with Pavelski, Thornton, Marleau, Couture and good supporting cast players like Ward. If you don't have at least 3 high end forwards and another group of good supporting players, you won't win. Backlund is a good supporting player, but he isn't a part of the upper end group. He never will be, because his talent level isn't high enough. Does that make him a bad player, no of course not. He is one of the best complimentary players any team could have.

If a trade is available to trade a complimentary player for a high end one though, it is an upgrade, even though you are taking a loss of quality of the complimentary player.

Your logic is equal to the following:

The Coyotes suck, therefore Oliver Ekman Larsson is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Canadiens suck, therefore PK Subban is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Senators suck, therefore Erik Karlsson is not a #1 Defenseman.
The Oilers suck, therefore Connor McDavid is not an elite talent.
The Canucks suck, therefore Edler-Tanev is a crappy defense pairing that couldn't stop Matt Stajan and Brandon Bollig.
The Blue Jackets suck, therefore Bobrovsky/Korpisalo is a terrible goaltending situation.
The Jets suck, therefore Ehlers-Scheifele-Wheeler is a terrible 1st line.
The St. Louis Blues scored less goals than the Calgary Flames, therefore the St. Louis Blues are not very good.

No, my logic does not say that. It would be if I said that Gaudreau and Monahan and Giordano, and Brodie are not good because the Flames sucked. Backlund is not a good enough player to be a second line center on an elite team. If he is, then that team must have 6 really awesome wingers to compensate for the weakness up the middle. That again isn't a slight to Backlund. He is probably the best 3rd line center in the NHL, if he is being used as a 3rd line center. He's also one of the weaker (bottom 15) centers if he's being used on the second line. An elite team needs a top 10 1st line center and a top 10 (31st-40th) second line center at a minimum. Most elite teams though have two top 30 centers. Backlund finished tied for 50th among centers in points. A top 40 center last year had a minimum of 50 points with the 30th ranked on having 55.

You're one of my favorite posters but sorry, that form of logic is just plain lazy.

Evidence of Backlund being a poor second line center would have to examine only his line's effectiveness as a second line, not the effectiveness of the second line plus three other lines on the team he played on. He can't do anything about the first line's inability to establish and hold the zone on the road, or the third line's inability to do anything ever, or the fourth line's inability to push the tempo and instead resorting to dump-and-change tactics.

I know what I'm saying sounds like the reason why the Flames are terrible is Mikael Backlund. That is not what I am saying though. The Flames are terrible because they don't have enough good players to allow Backlund to play the role that he should be based on the level of talent he possesses. Ideally the Flames would be set up like this.

Gaudreau-Monahan-low end 1st line player or high end second line player
average 2nd line guy-Bennett-Colborne or similar top 9 winger
average 3rd line defensive minded player-Backlund-Frolik
Ferland-Bouma-Jooris (typical 4th line guys that can hit and score a bit)

Unfortunately, the Flames this season did not get those kind of performances from the supporting cast. That shifted Bennett to be the 2nd line LW, and under performing players up into the top 9. Guys that were all basically AHL caliber performers (Raymond/Stajan/Jones/Ferland/Jooris/Bouma).

Now on to the end of this long post, the main difference between #6 and #3 is that #6, assuming it's one of the wingers, will take one of the two winger spots up on the second line, which is fine unless Nylander over performs and can fill that 1st line RW spot. Unfortunately that will still leave 2 top 9 positions that will need to be filled, including likely a 1st line role. Getting Puljujarvi fills that 1st line role for the long term while opening a hole on the 3rd line (assuming Backlund gets dealt for #3). Jankowski could likely fill that third line hole eventually albeit not likely as proficiently as Backlund. In each case you're looking at 2017-18 as the starting period for each of them entering those roles at the earliest. If the Flames did not have Jankowski, I would be more reticent in dealing Backlund, but we do have an internal potential replacement that is almost ready to play in the NHL.

[Tinordi]

Jankowski is nothing close to NHL ready. He's a fifty fifty shot at best to turn into a serviceable this liner. He's nowhere near the conversation of replacing Backlund anytime in the next three seasons. Jankowski's absolute peak, if everything worked out, is to one day be as good as Backlund.

Not to go on a tirade but there's way to many people counting the Jankowski eggs. He's behind Shinkaruk, Grant, Shore, Poirier, Arnold, and arguably Hamilton for call up depth. He's at least one full season in the AHL away from a real look.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Do you think Backlund will re-sign with this team after his current contact? Would you want him to if it was in excess of $5.0-5.5m over 6 or so years? Because that is what we are looking at come July 1st, 2017 after he puts up 40-47+ points again. Poor man's Derek Stepan or hell, Derek Stepan in another universe.

If the answer is no, then BT needs to start planting the seed to trade Backlund yesterday IMO. Execute the trade on his terms but hopefully BT knows whether or not he will be saving $$ for Backlund to be one of the top 4-5 paid players on the team.

I should preface that I love Backlund but this team is not a contender and should still be analyzing everything in a forward thinking fashion. Times a ticking on Mr. Backlund unfortunately.

This is what makes this site so great..

Colborne coming off a 44 pt season is worth 1.5-2.5 according to 65% of CP voters..... for 1 year before he becomes a UFA.

Then someone can say (and go unchallenged) that Backlund putting together a couple of 40-47 pt seasons will be getting paid 5-5.5

How does Stepan become anywhere close to a comparable to Backlund???.

Stephan has been the #1C on a playoff team for 4 years. As a 20 year old rookie he put up 45 pts. He has not been below .7 ppg in the last 4 years


Stepan coming off his ELC

212 games (missing no games in his first 3 years)
56 goal
140 pts -- .66 ppg
+47


Monahan coming off his ELC

237 games
80 goals
159 pts .67 ppg
-17

In the last year of his ELC Stepan had .9 ppg .... He signed a 2 year 3.075M after holding out as a RFA.

That is what winning GMs do. Stepan earned his 6.5x6 with his play on his 2 year bridge contract.


PS. Sorry for taking thread further off topic , but just going with what is being posted here.

[TheScorpion]

Good gracious, Ricardo.

He said that he thought the time was ticking on Backlund, not that he should be paid over 5 million.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Backlund will be paid over 5 million dollars. Also, when did 65% of CP voters think Colborne should be paid 1.5 million? Wasn't that before his hot streak and his turnaround? I'd be fine with paying Joe as much as 3 million.

And what does Monahan have to do with anything? I thought you were comparing Stepan to Backlund. And Monahan's +/-, it being a nothing stat aside, is largely due to the fact that he has been playing on a god-awful team, 1 year aside. Stepan's been in the playoffs every year of his career.

[EldrickOnIce]

When did 65% of CPer's say that?
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=154794

[edslunch]

There is concern that the Flames may not resign Colborne due to contract demands/cap issues. (The amount of concern depending whether you like the player or not). The team may just not value him as highly period, but what if it's more of a cap consideration? In that case you might start thinking about a Backlund vs Colborne choice. On the surface it's a clear choice - Backlund is a much better player. But think about having Backlund and 6OA vs Colborne and 3OA and suddenly trading Backlund doesn't seem unthinkable

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think he's a great fit for us. RW right shot, big, fast, strong, good playmaker, good finisher, competes hard in both ends. He's arguably more NHL ready than the options at #6.

I don't know how much better he is than what's available at #6. I like Tkachuk and Dubois quite a bit and there's a chance one of them falls to us. But I like Puljujarvi, Tkachuk and Dubois quite a bit more than any other forward availble. I think all 3 would be great fits and I'd consider moving up to guarantee any of them. Puljujarvi has game breaking speed that the other two lack and may end up the biggest of the bunch.

Now as the most NHL ready and potentially the highest upside guy would I pay more to move up and grab Puljujarvi? Yes. How much is an overpayment? It's really hard to say. The Flames IMO have so many assets that we can afford to make a few quantity for quality trades to get a key piece for a certain position. Having an elite RW with size develop with the other young forwards is very appealing.

I can see the merits of staying put and I can see the merits of dealing up. I think we're in a no lose situation. If the worst case scenario is drafting one of the dmen, Brown, Nylander, Keller, etc then we're sitting pretty. But I think ideally we'd leave the draft with one of the big, strong wingers (Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, Dubois.) Not sure if Flames management feels the same but we do have a glaring lack of big, strong, skilled wingers on the team and in the system.

I think he's a perfect fit for us too, I just have a hard time believing that he's so much better than one of the prospects we can get at 6th that the difference is Backlund. Or like many here have been saying Backlund ++

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Good gracious, Ricardo.

He said that he thought the time was ticking on Backlund, not that he should be paid over 5 million.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Backlund will be paid over 5 million dollars. Also, when did 65% of CP voters think Colborne should be paid 1.5 million? Wasn't that before his hot streak and his turnaround? I'd be fine with paying Joe as much as 3 million.

And what does Monahan have to do with anything? I thought you were comparing Stepan to Backlund. And Monahan's +/-, it being a nothing stat aside, is largely due to the fact that he has been playing on a god-awful team, 1 year aside. Stepan's been in the playoffs every year of his career.

The poll last week had Colborne salary guess: 22% saying 1.5-2.0 and 42% saying 2-2.5. only 6% (24 out of 406 votes) were thinking he would get over 3M.

The point I was making, after looking how Stepan compared to Backlund was that Stepan was in the Monahan class and not the Backlund class.

If Backlund is getting paid more than 3-4M (at his current level) that team will not be a playoff contender. Support players Like Backlund and Frolik can not be making 2/3 of what all stars are getting paid.

Getting it back to the topic Is Puljujärvi going to be better than Backlund and Chychrn or Nylander??

I thinks so. Bonus would be more cap room for the next 3 years as well.

I don't think Columbus would take that deal.

The Flames management are about to find out how hard it is to put together a team with no ELC or value contracts.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by edslunch

There is concern that the Flames may not resign Colborne due to contract demands/cap issues. (The amount of concern depending whether you like the player or not). The team may just not value him as highly period, but what if it's more of a cap consideration? In that case you might start thinking about a Backlund vs Colborne choice. On the surface it's a clear choice - Backlund is a much better player. But think about having Backlund and 6OA vs Colborne and 3OA and suddenly trading Backlund doesn't seem unthinkable

I can't see them not qualifying Colborne?
I think you have to get your other deals done first though. Know exactly what Gaudreau and Monahan are costing you. Knowing if there is a deal for Wideman. Then, if there is room for Colborne longer term, so be it. Otherwise you are simply stuck with the arb award for one year.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

This is what makes this site so great..

Colborne coming off a 44 pt season is worth 1.5-2.5 according to 65% of CP voters..... for 1 year before he becomes a UFA.

Then someone can say (and go unchallenged) that Backlund putting together a couple of 40-47 pt seasons will be getting paid 5-5.5

How does Stepan become anywhere close to a comparable to Backlund???.

Stephan has been the #1C on a playoff team for 4 years. As a 20 year old rookie he put up 45 pts. He has not been below .7 ppg in the last 4 years


Stepan coming off his ELC

212 games (missing no games in his first 3 years)
56 goal
140 pts -- .66 ppg
+47


Monahan coming off his ELC

237 games
80 goals
159 pts .67 ppg
-17

In the last year of his ELC Stepan had .9 ppg .... He signed a 2 year 3.075M after holding out as a RFA.

That is what winning GMs do. Stepan earned his 6.5x6 with his play on his 2 year bridge contract.


PS. Sorry for taking thread further off topic , but just going with what is being posted here.

I said poor man's Stepan, also my prediction was factoring in inflation. If Stepan was UFA he would've signed for more. I was speculating what Backlund might get as a UFA in two years. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand here.

[polak]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I can't see them not qualifying Colborne?
I think you have to get your other deals done first though. Know exactly what Gaudreau and Monahan are costing you. Knowing if there is a deal for Wideman. Then, if there is room for Colborne longer term, so be it. Otherwise you are simply stuck with the arb award for one year.

Cap issues could easily lead to them not qualifying Colborne if they don't have faith that his march scoring was a true sign of improvement.

I really hope that's the case.

[JiriHrdina]

Colborne is a level headed guy. I anticipate he will be given a 1 year contract that reflects both his improvement shown but also gives him a chance to show them he can do it more consistently and a sustained manner.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I can't see them not qualifying Colborne?

I feel the risk of going to artibtration outweighs the reward of potentially keeping him around. The cap is not going up, Gaudreau and Monahan are more important, and we're right up against the cap once the more important deals are done plus a goalie.

[EldrickOnIce]

I dunno. I can't see giving Colborne away for zero return. If it goes down that way, it plays out as a combination of moves that culminates in brutal asset management, no?