[GDT] NHL Draft Lottery

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Understood which is why I said that was the wrong time for that trade. Flames weren't asset rich enough to make the Harmonic trade at that time. And it's not just the Harmonic trade that saw picks go out the door.

The Flames were extremely asset rich when the Hamonic deal went down. They had elite young talent up front (Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk) with the potential of young players like Bennett, Jankowski, Dube and an elite offensive young defenseman in Hamilton with a top vet in Gio and Brodie on top with the huge potential of Valimaki plus having Andersson, Fox and Kylington's potential and Rittich, Gillies, Parsons in goal. Valimaki I think they knew they got lucky with and that might have really been the icing on our asset cake so to speak as Treliving saw tremendous assets on the main team and a strong prospect base. If we hadn't been so asset rich I doubt Treliving would've made such a deal but the strong/lucky drafting of the past few years enabled him to move a 1st.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

All that said, I still believe Harmonic should not have cost what he did. So even if you believe he was the missing piece to a contending team, he should have cost less IMO or you look at a different option.

Disagree. That's the going rate for strong defensive defensemen.

Late in their careers both Robyn Regehr and Doug Murray were traded for two 2nds as UFA rentals, so only for a partial season. Those defensive defensemen play a similar game to Hamonic and were both 2nd pairing guys when traded. Pretty easy to say if either were way younger and on a good contract and signed for years more then they'd cost a 1st and two 2nds.

If you can get a few months of an ancient defensive defensemen at the deadline for two 2nds then Hamonic at his age, with his cap hit, at his contract is easily worth a 1st and two 2nds. Therefore the Hamonic deal is market value.

In a world where unproven NHL prospect defenseman Griffin Reinhart is worth a 1st and a 2nd and whose upside looked to be Travis Hamonic at best, Travis Hamonic himself should easily be worth a 1st and two 2nds. Therefore the Hamonic deal is market value.

In a world where defensive defenseman Braydon Coburn is worth Gudas, a 1st and a 3rd, I would suggest that Hamonic is worth a similar price in a 1st and two 2nds. Therefore the Hamonic deal is market value.

And we could go on and on with the examples. The market for defensive defensemen has been set over the years and it is a lot higher than some fans think or remember. GM's value these players and how they contribute to a winning team even though their offensive stats do not wow the fans that concentrate mostly on those stats.

If you do the research you'll find that the Hamonic deal looks like market value for that type of player. Defensemen cost a lot to trade for in their prime in the NHL, even the ones who are defensive defensemen. Hamonic should be an important piece going forward making the opposition pay a price, battling and blocking lanes and shots, playing with a bit of an edge, helping on the PK while still having the skating and puck handling to move the puck when needed.

Twas a solid deal last summer IMO and I still maintain that. I think some fans underrated the value of these guys and their role on the team. Engelland was a slower, less skilled, nastier Hamonic type and I think his time on the Flames and Vegas has proven he was/is a valuable player. We've been missing a Hamonic/Regehr type since we traded Regehr. In the new NHL the top end defensive defensemen have to be able to skate and pass and Hamonic has much better skating and puck moving than a guy like Regehr did even thought not as physically nasty as Regehr or Engelland were.

So no Treliving didn't solve our depth scoring issues with the Hamonic trade but most winning teams have a good defensive defenseman in their top 4 and we needed one long term. He solved one piece of the puzzle even though some fans are bitter it was not the scoring RW piece.

This summer is the summer he likely solves our last major puzzle piece (IMO), one more depth top 6 offensive driver.

[GioforPM]

This. Hamonic is underrated because he doesn't put up points. But the Flames are going nowhere without him or someone like him. Look at all the PO teams. They all have someone like him. And like was said, he's on a great contract, is only 27, and has a lot of intangibles to boot.

[The Yen Man]

I agree. I really like Hamonics game as a solid shutdown dman and think the trade in hindsight of it not being a lottery pick makes it a fair trade.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Subjectively, the Flames going into next season have 2 roster holes on forward, 1 for the top six and another for the bottom 6. In addition, they have one hole on the bottom six spot on defence. I would like to examine prospects according to those needs.

For forwards there are arguably 5 players who are realistically pushing for a spot in camp:

Foo 62GP 20G 19A 39PTS
Dube 53GP 38G 46A 84Pts in the WHL
Mangiapane 39GP 21G 25A 46Pts in the AHL
Klimchuk 62GP 19G 21A 40Pts in the AHL
Gawdin 67GP 56G 69A 125Pts in the WHL

I think that one of these player would plug nicely into the bottom six. That being said, the Flames void in the top six wing is likely not to be solved by this group. This is what is frustrating about the lack of picks in the top rounds this draft. Each of these players look like an outside shot at helping with secondary scoring, let alone primary scoring. It would be nice to pick a player who could contribute over the next few years this draft.

That said, when this is examined in contrast to the positional needs on defence the situation looks less extreme. The Flames need a bottom pairing D man for next season, and they will have three players who are capable of competing for this spot right away.

Andersson
Valimaki
Kylington

In conclusion it is clear that the Flames will need to look for more scoring through alternative methods, UFAs or trading. This is not ideal. Still, The Flames are not completely lost as they do have a position of strength their defence. So, while it is frustrating that this draft will not be a source of development for the roster as is stands, it does appear that the Flames will have some options for trades. We can all agree that the best teams develop through the draft. Still, prudent free agency moves, and trades might be just what this team needs to overcome last seasons troubles. In other words, having no draft picks sucks, but all hope for roster improvement is not lost.

Add Matthew Phillips to that list, guys WHL stats are very similar to other smaller skilled guys like Brayden Point and Tyler Johnson.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who is doing that?

I am an enthusiast who has followed Valimaki's development this year and remain very impressed. Of course, I don't expect you to concede any ground in this matter—you have made it abundantly clear that you hated the Hamonic trade, and remain steadfastly dubious of any silver linings.

You are doing that by quoting Treliving in your post previous to this one.

I like Valimaki too and I don’t see how that has anything to do with finding a silver lining to the Hamonic trade.

As for making it “abundantly clear” that I “hated” the Hamonic trade, I have not ever said that. I believe it was an overpayment and not a risk that I wish Treliving had taken at that time. I have also said Hamonic is a very useful player. If you are going to insist on using hyperbole, you should limit it to describing your own views.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

In a world where unproven NHL prospect defenseman Griffin Reinhart is worth a 1st and a 2nd and whose upside looked to be Travis Hamonic at best, Travis Hamonic himself should easily be worth a 1st and two 2nds. Therefore the Hamonic deal is market value.

In a world where defensive defenseman Braydon Coburn is worth Gudas, a 1st and a 3rd, I would suggest that Hamonic is worth a similar price in a 1st and two 2nds. Therefore the Hamonic deal is market value.

And we could go on and on with the examples. The market for defensive defensemen has been set over the years and it is a lot higher than some fans think or remember. GM's value these players and how they contribute to a winning team even though their offensive stats do not wow the fans that concentrate mostly on those stats.

If you do the research you'll find that the Hamonic deal looks like market value for that type of player. Defensemen cost a lot to trade for in their prime in the NHL, even the ones who are defensive defensemen. Hamonic should be an important piece going forward making the opposition pay a price, battling and blocking lanes and shots, playing with a bit of an edge, helping on the PK while still having the skating and puck handling to move the puck when needed..

Appreciate you coming up with examples of value for similar defensemen.

Some trades work out for everyone while other trades have clear winners and losers. The Coburn and Reinhart trades had clear winners and losers IMO and I wouldn’t use them as definitive measures of market value.

Anyway maybe Treliving will trade Brodie for 2 first rounders which would certainly prove out the theory that this defensive depth is so valuable. Or Hamonic’s value will be proved out on the ice and in the standings next year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Appreciate you coming up with examples of value for similar defensemen.

Some trades work out for everyone while other trades have clear winners and losers. The Coburn and Reinhart trades had clear winners and losers IMO and I wouldn’t use them as definitive measures of market value.

Anyway maybe Treliving will trade Brodie for 2 first rounders which would certainly prove out the theory that this defensive depth is so valuable. Or Hamonic’s value will be proved out on the ice and in the standings next year.

I realize you are being sarcastic, but Brodie's value is quite a bit less than Hamonic's.

IMO Hamonic was one of the few bright spots in the second half of the season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

In conclusion it is clear that the Flames will need to look for more scoring through alternative methods, UFAs or trading. This is not ideal. Still, The Flames are not completely lost as they do have a position of strength their defence. So, while it is frustrating that this draft will not be a source of development for the roster as is stands, it does appear that the Flames will have some options for trades. We can all agree that the best teams develop through the draft. Still, prudent free agency moves, and trades might be just what this team needs to overcome last seasons troubles. In other words, having no draft picks sucks, but all hope for roster improvement is not lost.

The 2018-19 Flames or the 2019-20 Flames were very unlikely to use a player taken in either summer's drafts (if they had all their picks) to solve a top six hole on the team.

That's why the futures moves have been made.

Finding players to fit the core that is cost controlled now.

Sure at 12 and the team sliding this year there is a slightly better chance of finding a "now" player but still unlikely.

The fix was always going to be an asset shift from defenseman depth to forward.

[Philly06Cup]

Remember when Nashville had a surplus of defensemen and defensive prospects? They traded away Seth Jones for Ryan Johanssen. Right now it looks like Jones is the better player, but it was the right move for them.

Somehow, Calgary has great defensemen and defensive prospects, and instead they trade 3 picks for another defenseman, and use their remaining cap space for another defenseman, while their prospects toil in the minors.

Makes no freaking sense.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Remember when Nashville had a surplus of defensemen and defensive prospects? They traded away Seth Jones for Ryan Johanssen. Right now it looks like Jones is the better player, but it was the right move for them.

Somehow, Calgary has great defensemen and defensive prospects, and instead they trade 3 picks for another defenseman, and use their remaining cap space for another defenseman, while their prospects toil in the minors.

Makes no freaking sense.

*Tinfoil hat time.*

Perhaps the acquisition of Hamonic was designed to entice Tavares to consider Calgary.

I have no proof and it seems like a longshot, but it would make that trade make a little more sense.

If we got Hamonic for assets but he became important to acquire Tavares for cash then that trade would be evaluated differently.

Anyways, please carry on with your regularly scheduled torches and pitchforks.

[nik-]

sounds like Feaster making a bunch of cap room to take a run at Richards.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The 2018-19 Flames or the 2019-20 Flames were very unlikely to use a player taken in either summer's drafts (if they had all their picks) to solve a top six hole on the team.

That's why the futures moves have been made.

Finding players to fit the core that is cost controlled now.

Sure at 12 and the team sliding this year there is a slightly better chance of finding a "now" player but still unlikely.

The fix was always going to be an asset shift from defenseman depth to forward.

So what it comes down is to timing. How close are the Flames to have a chance to win the SC. If you think the Flames are going to be a top-4 team in the west in the next 2 years then it is a good trade.

It is pretty much a universal truth or belief that the absolute best way to fill a top-6/ top-4 role is through the draft and by far the best way to do this is with a first round pick and the next best way is with 2nd and 3rds and a good development system.

Are the Flames going to the 2nd round in the next 2 years with a
viable chance of winning that round? If so then trading draft choices for a #4 d man would make sense... knowing that there will be a emptier prospect chain in 2-3 years.

I don't think that UFA's are usually a good move but signing Kulikov to a 4.3 x 3 year deal rather than trading for Hamonic would have been a better way to go. The .5M of lost cap space certainly is worth a 1st and 2nds.

I am sure that a lot of CP posters think that Hamonic is better than Larson and Chris Tanev but I would think that a non-partisan observer would have them both rated as better than Hamonic.

Tanev 4.45 for another 2 years, Larson 4.16 for another 3 years. Hamonic 3.86 for another 2 years. Are Tanev and Larsen great cost controlled deals?

I had thought at the time of the Hamonic trade that the Flames had given up on ufa Stone. It should have been one or the other and pretty obvious Stone would have been my first choice as a #4 d-man.

I guess that I do not think that it was all coaching that got this group of players to finish 11 points out of the last wild card where they would be out gunned in the 1st round. I don't see them being a top-4 in the west team over the duration of Hamonic's contract.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

sounds like Feaster making a bunch of cap room to take a run at Richards.

You know what....at the time I thought that was a less than terrible idea. Hindsight proves differently because Richards fell off a cliff.

Either way though, Feaster's job was to create cap room. He succeeded by failing to acquire Richards.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Add Matthew Phillips to that list, guys WHL stats are very similar to other smaller skilled guys like Brayden Point and Tyler Johnson.

Down the line he could push for a spot, but I just don't see it happening next season. Give him a year in the AHL to develop physically.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

So what it comes down is to timing. How close are the Flames to have a chance to win the SC. If you think the Flames are going to be a top-4 team in the west in the next 2 years then it is a good trade.

Yeah I think that's what they were thinking.

And yeah I think that's why they made the trade.

To be honest I still think it's the thinking and he still fits that picture.

And given the end of season "hate to lose" angle, it sounds like he's already part of the core in the "give a rip" club and perhaps a lot more important than first thought.

But I'm fine with not agreeing with where they are, that's up to the individual including Treliving to assess.

But I get the thinking.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know what....at the time I thought that was a less than terrible idea. Hindsight proves differently because Richards fell off a cliff.

Either way though, Feaster's job was to create cap room. He succeeded by failing to acquire Richards.

"Succeeded by Failing" is the slogan of the Feaster era.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

"Succeeded by Failing" is the slogan of the Feaster era.

As fans we sort of have to take that as a positive.

There was a lot of things that Feaster tried to do that were just not good ideas.

I've been pretty clear that my opinion is that Feaster was brought in to tear the place down and that his tenure was always designed to be temporary.

And I think he did a good job at doing the Dirty Work. Whether he lucked into some of it or not.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Remember when Nashville had a surplus of defensemen and defensive prospects? They traded away Seth Jones for Ryan Johanssen. Right now it looks like Jones is the better player, but it was the right move for them.

Somehow, Calgary has great defensemen and defensive prospects, and instead they trade 3 picks for another defenseman, and use their remaining cap space for another defenseman, while their prospects toil in the minors.

Makes no freaking sense.

Some people form their responses on this forum as if they have no understanding of nuance. This is not an "either/or" situation: The Flames can in fact have a good core of defensemen and a good group of defence prospects while still maintaining that 1) they need further improvements on the blue line, and 2) their defensive prospects are not yet ready to provide the necessary level of improvement. I think this was the situation at the beginning of last season. It has been repeated over and over since last spring: at the time, the Flames had three primary needs:

· a starting goalie
· a second-pair defenseman
· a scoring rightwinger

They addressed the first two, but were unable to fill the third.

With an added year of development I believe that the situation has presently changed, and would expect the Flames to NOW draw from an even greater strength in their defence core to address their scoring needs. They are better positioned to do so NOW than they were last year.

How is this so difficult to grasp?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

As fans we sort of have to take that as a positive.

There was a lot of things that Feaster tried to do that were just not good ideas.

I've been pretty clear that my opinion is that Feaster was brought in to tear the place down and that his tenure was always designed to be temporary.

And I think he did a good job at doing the Dirty Work. Whether he lucked into some of it or not.

oh indeed. Thank god for Feaster's ####ups.

[TheIronMaiden]

From a roster trajectory stand point I am not upset with BTs strategy. That said, from an entertainment perspective I am frustrated. The team is in total limbo until the trade freeze ends, and I don't have any interest in looking at which prospects will be available in the fourth round. Quite frankly its a little boring.