Pronman: Flames 9th ranked prospect pool

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Considering Calgary already has one of the youngest cores in the NHL, it's a pretty awesome thing that we still have a respectable prospect pool. A pool so deep in certain positions that we don't end up qualifying some deserving players (gilmour, arnold, jooris, etc).

Stockton is going to be one of the youngest teams in the AHL next year and will certainly be competitive. I think every team strives to adopt a Detroit like model of overripening players in the AHL.

Or just continue the Flames model of drafting blue chippers in the 4th round.

[madmike]

Honestly I think 9th is pretty generous. Other than Tkachuk and possibly Gillies there aren't any super-exciting prospects. There are some solid depth guys and some intriguing long shots like Mangiapane, but most teams have those.

[Mister Yamoto]

What are they doing in Stockton? In the last three years the Flames AHL affiliates have graduated three players to the NHL. Ferland, Jooris and Ortio. They haven't graduated a Dman since Brodie. That was six years ago.

The Flames drafting over the years hasn't been great but I think the real failure has been the development. These players seem great when they are drafted and usually have a standout draft +1 in junior. Then when they get to Stockton/Adirondack/Abbotsford they hit a wall.

What's the point of having good prospect depth if you can't do anything with it?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by madmike

Honestly I think 9th is pretty generous. Other than Tkachuk and possibly Gillies there aren't any super-exciting prospects. There are some solid depth guys and some intriguing long shots like Mangiapane, but most teams have those.

Disagree. Jankowski has exciting potential. We're extremely deep in blue liners which some may not find exciting but the depth there is tremendous with Andersson, Kylington, Hickey, Wotherspoon, Kulak, etc. Shinkaruk and Poirier both still have some promise. Besides Gillies we also have highly touted goalies in Mason McDonald and Tyler Parsons. Plenty of other significant depth that I haven't even touched on.

Our depth now is still much greater than it was for most of the past 20 years. You seem to have taken an ultra pessimistic stance or perhaps you're just not well informed about these prospects? I dunno.

[CaptainCrunch]

Pretty awful column to me, and the fact that he mentions Klefbom and especially Larsson whos played more games in the NHL then Hamilton is ridiculous.

Edmonton should really be middle of the pack or lower because their cupboard is pretty bare outside of their first round pick this year, Calgary's is far deeper and further along.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

It would be interesting to see how these prospect pool rankings correlate to the improvement of each team. The top 10 teams from 5 years ago should playoff teams by now, shouldn't they?

1. Detroit
2. NY Islanders
3. Nashville
4. Ottawa
5. Chicago
6. Carolina
7. Boston
8. LA
9. Florida
10. Anaheim

Yes, most of those teams are in the playoffs now.

To expand:

Teams who were out of the playoffs in 2011 but made them in 2016 - FLA, NYI

Teams who were in the playoffs in 2011 but out if them in 2016 - BOS

Pretty much all of those teams have barely improved, they also haven't become a whole lot worse. Ottawa and Carolina still aren't consistent contenders for the playoffs and everyone else who made them still are.

Great prospect pool? Bad prospect pool? It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot considering it didn't help 4, 6, and 7 on the list and only did wonders for 5 and 9.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by madmike

Honestly I think 9th is pretty generous. Other than Tkachuk and possibly Gillies there aren't any super-exciting prospects. There are some solid depth guys and some intriguing long shots like Mangiapane, but most teams have those.

OK so play it out. What teams below do you take ahead of the Flames.
I think one could make an argument for the Canucks on the basis of the top end.
Do you take Tkachuk-Janko-Gillies or Joe Levi-Boeser-Demko.

I take the Flames by a nose, and also think their system has overall better depth and upside, all things being equal.

I like the Sens system - largely because of Chabot (under-rated) and Brown.

But generally speaking I think the Flames are about where they should be.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

What are they doing in Stockton? In the last three years the Flames AHL affiliates have graduated three players to the NHL. Ferland, Jooris and Ortio. They haven't graduated a Dman since Brodie. That was six years ago.

The Flames drafting over the years hasn't been great but I think the real failure has been the development. These players seem great when they are drafted and usually have a standout draft +1 in junior. Then when they get to Stockton/Adirondack/Abbotsford they hit a wall.

What's the point of having good prospect depth if you can't do anything with it?

I think having good prospect depth is less important than having a small number of high end prospects who have a chance of becoming front line players.
To that end - the Flames most important young players by-passed the farm completely, as is becoming increasingly the norm.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

OK so play it out. What teams below do you take ahead of the Flames.
I think one could make an argument for the Canucks on the basis of the top end.
Do you take Tkachuk-Janko-Gillies or Joe Levi-Boeser-Demko.

I take the Flames by a nose, and also think their system has overall better depth and upside, all things being equal.

I like the Sens system - largely because of Chabot (under-rated) and Brown.

But generally speaking I think the Flames are about where they should be.

The Canucks trio looks miles better than ours if they take Tkachuk at 5. Thank god for Benning.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

What are they doing in Stockton? In the last three years the Flames AHL affiliates have graduated three players to the NHL. Ferland, Jooris and Ortio. They haven't graduated a Dman since Brodie. That was six years ago.

The Flames drafting over the years hasn't been great but I think the real failure has been the development. These players seem great when they are drafted and usually have a standout draft +1 in junior. Then when they get to Stockton/Adirondack/Abbotsford they hit a wall.

What's the point of having good prospect depth if you can't do anything with it?

I would guess without looking that that is pretty normal. Pro is a huge jump from junior and a lot of guys simply aren't cut out for it. For a number of reasons. Not physically ready, can't process the game at a quick enough pace, too low hockey IQ, and some guys just lack the drive and determination to take that next giant leap forward.

My guess is our failure rate from junior to pro is relatively consistent with the league average.

Further, it would look better if three of our best players hadn't made the jump directly from junior or college to pro.

Brodie, Backlund and Bouma stand out as guys who worked up through the AHL. This year, Wotherspoon, Kulak, and Poirier all have a shot at upping our average too. Our prospect pool is a bit young to say our youth isn't turning out after junior to impugn our recent (post-Sutter) drafting.

[GranteedEV]

Ignoring those top ~four guys on each list, who really knows, we might have the best 5-25 depth in the league (though I am not pretending to have familiarity with other team's 20th best prospects). Obviously comparing Brandon Hickey to Zach Werenski is a no-brainer right now... but depth should not be understated...prospect depth like ours is where a "surprise" will usually come from. Guys like Mark Stone and Jamie Benn and Niklas Hjalmarsson... legitimate core pieces don't always start out as Blue Chippers but you can still identify things they did well as prospects.

In addition to "surprises", there is also the aspect of quality for quantity trades. They are proven to reap rewards for the kind of high-end veterans that you actually do want. Phil Kessel. Patrick Sharp. Jason Spezza. Jeff Carter. Mike Richards. Rick Nash. Add up the returns on age 26-31 stars on bad teams like this and you might still fall short of a 30th place NHL team. If you're gonna sell the farm, it better be for a return that is worth it, and you better have a farm to sell.

[Vulcan]

So has anyone cornered Treliving on who he was going to pick if Tkachuk was gone. I think everyone on this board spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure that one out before the draft and now we deserve an answer.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't much care for Pronman's lists once he admitted to seeing a lot of kids only on video - that isn't easy to do unless he has some type of access that most people don't. Maybe he does.. but what you don't see on video is how a prospect is reacting to the play and what he does away from the puck. For that reason, I take his rankings with a HUGE grain of salt - whether they are overly dismissive of Calgary or giving praise to Calgary.

With that being said, Tkachuk, Gillies and Kylington are all what I consider 'blue-chippers' - high upside prospects with a very good chance of making the NHL. I think all 3 of them are a tier above the rest of our prospects.

Next up is Jankowski, Shinkaruk, Poirier, Andersson, MacDonald and Parsons - perhaps add in Klimchuk if he manages to stay healthy.

After that, there is a whole lot of really good depth. Guys like Kulak and Wotherspoon who look like they could actually end up being top 4 defencemen down the road. Fox who has high upside but is a bit more of a question mark at the moment. Dube (who I think people will actually start to really notice next season in junior). I won't mention all of them, but (IMO) the list is fairly exhaustive.

What I don't get is the Oilers. They really don't have a lot. They have one blue-chipper that I really like, and after that there is a big drop off. I don't think they have a guy that should be ranked in the 'B' class - most of their prospects do seem more like depth types to me, but maybe they do have a couple.

Also, I am not a big fan of Vancouver's prospects. Boeser is the only guy I really like. Juolevi became the defencemen I hoped the Flames would avoid due to what I consider a low-compete level (dude is horrible in the corners and lets smaller guys out-muscle him for pucks, though he has really nice strengths in other areas), and what I consider a more limited upside. Demko is nice, and though I haven't followed him since Gaudreau graduated, I didn't much like what I saw of him in the NCAA. Maybe he has really improved, but I didn't think he was overly-hyped and I would still choose MacDonald over him (and I think Canadian goalies have fallen by the wayside lately). What I think Vancouver has put together is decent depth, and when they eventually rebuild they will already have some really solid pieces in play (the reverse of the Oilers, and much more like the Flames with Backlund, Brodie and a few other depth guys like Bouma and Ferland).

I digress.. Kylington is a blue-chipper, and I see a really great career in Calgary for him.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

OK so play it out. What teams below do you take ahead of the Flames.
I think one could make an argument for the Canucks on the basis of the top end.
Do you take Tkachuk-Janko-Gillies or Joe Levi-Boeser-Demko.

I take the Flames by a nose, and also think their system has overall better depth and upside, all things being equal.

I like the Sens system - largely because of Chabot (under-rated) and Brown.

But generally speaking I think the Flames are about where they should be.

The Canucks passed on Tkachuk for their guy so at the very least that should come out a draw. (picking at that spot they have to be expecting a Hamilton or better)

Gillies and Demko..... hard to pick one.. Demko is a year young coming out of the NCAA and was at the same level as Gillies when he went pro.... at best that should come out a draw.

I would be shocked if there is anyone who would pick Jankowski ahead of Boeser.

[JiriHrdina]

Who the Canucks took should not be the sole determination of which prospect is better. I think Tkachuk is a better prospect regardless of who the Canucks took

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Who the Canucks took should not be the sole determination of which prospect is better. I think Tkachuk is a better prospect regardless of who the Canucks took

I think even Benning alluded a few times to thinking Dubois/Tkachuk were better prospects but their need for a defenseman being bigger.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I think even Benning alluded a few times to thinking Dubois/Tkachuk were better prospects but their need for a defenseman being bigger.

Drafting for need in the top 5 really illustrates how ####ed the Canucks really are.

[madmike]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Disagree. Jankowski has exciting potential. We're extremely deep in blue liners which some may not find exciting but the depth there is tremendous with Andersson, Kylington, Hickey, Wotherspoon, Kulak, etc. Shinkaruk and Poirier both still have some promise. Besides Gillies we also have highly touted goalies in Mason McDonald and Tyler Parsons. Plenty of other significant depth that I haven't even touched on.

Our depth now is still much greater than it was for most of the past 20 years. You seem to have taken an ultra pessimistic stance or perhaps you're just not well informed about these prospects? I dunno.

I'm not pessimistic. The Flames have great young players, but they're already in the NHL. And I do like guys like Hickey. I just don't see them being blue chippers. They might work out and they might not.

I used to have rose-coloured glasses for guys like Baertschi, Poirier, Irving, etc. I've learned my lesson.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Who the Canucks took should not be the sole determination of which prospect is better. I think Tkachuk is a better prospect regardless of who the Canucks took

Yeah the whole point of these lists is who the author thinks is a better prospect. Not who the Canucks or Flames think.

I do like reading these analyses from various people. Pretty hard for a home fan base to have an objective view of their prospects vs.other teams, so if you read enough of these pieces you can start to get an idea.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yeah the whole point of these lists is who the author thinks is a better prospect. Not who the Canucks or Flames think.

I do like reading these analyses from various people. Pretty hard for a home fan base to have an objective view of their prospects visvs.other teams, so if you read enough of these pieces you can start to get an idea.

Yup and I admire guys who go out on a limb and at least have an opinion.
Pronman and Button consistently have lists that are different from the consensus. Which in and of itself, makes them more interesting.