05-29-2021, 09:47 AM
|
#81
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
There is no way one can argue Parsons was a good pick. He isn’t even a good player at the ECHL level. You don’t draft players with the hopes they play well in junior
It’s especially worse knowing that Button wanted him earlier with the pick they traded away, which means he was ranked higher than Debrincat, Kyrou, Girard, Carter Hart etc. All great NHL players
Wolf was taken deep in the 7th round. It’s a successful pick already ALREADY given he’s signed and surpassed Parsons on the depth chart.
|
That's just silly.
Parsons was drafted and then went on to star at the World Juniors and win a memorial cup. That's instant draft success.
Injuries and off ice issues have hurt him since but that doesn't change that it was a good draft pick.
Wolf hasn't had a setback yet so he's moving in the right direction, but he doesn't have Parson's resume yet.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 09:49 AM
|
#82
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Was thinking the same and I could do that.
The problem is we are really only looking at three draft years and comparing it to the league.
2015 2016 and 2017
But if you look at 2015 to 2020 only Washington, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have had less draft capital, which is a pretty good strike against Treliving from that crowd.
Moving picks as if a contender without getting any results of a contender.
Aside from that though the Flames have the second best games played / draft capital spent (behind Columbus) in this time frame.
To me that jumps off the page when it comes to what myself and others are saying. They're finding value despite spending too many picks.
The teams mentioned above ... Washington, Pittsburgh and St. Louis (Calgary's peers for draft capital) are worst, 5th worse and 10th in this category (St. Louis doing quite well).
Games played isn't an impact stat, but it's a pretty objective quick measure that is valued equally.
Calgary is 8th in games played in this time frame.
|
I know it’s unpopular to give the Flames management any credit these days, but this is a pretty resounding plus in my eyes.
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 09:50 AM
|
#83
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
That's just silly.
Parsons was drafted and then went on to star at the World Juniors and win a memorial cup. That's instant draft success.
Injuries and off ice issues have hurt him since but that doesn't change that it was a good draft pick.
|
Juniors and the World Juniors add literally zero value for an NHL team
You draft for NHL success. He played on powerhouse teams then looked terrible the second he played a pro game
By your logical Pavel Brendl was a good pick too
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 09:52 AM
|
#84
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
Juniors and the World Juniors add literally zero value for an NHL team
You draft for NHL success. He played on powerhouse teams then looked terrible the second he played a pro game
By your logical Pavel Brendl was a good pick too
|
I don’t recall Brendl having injury issues, like Parsons, which derailed him - just work ethic issues. By your logic George Pelawa was a failed pick.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 09:56 AM
|
#85
|
Franchise Player
|
How do you define draft capital spent? Is that number of draft picks?
Where does equation put the flames if you include drafts post Sutter? Starting from 2011?
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 09:59 AM
|
#86
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
Juniors and the World Juniors add literally zero value for an NHL team
You draft for NHL success. He played on powerhouse teams then looked terrible the second he played a pro game
By your logical Pavel Brendl was a good pick too
|
So you draft a player and then he literally becomes one of the best goalies in junior, wins a world a memorial cup then drags his depleted team the next year to the third round.
That's a good draft pick.
Any second rounder that plays like a first rounder in the two years after being drafted is a good pick.
Brendl didn't improve at all after getting drafted.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:15 AM
|
#87
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
So you draft a player and then he literally becomes one of the best goalies in junior, wins a world a memorial cup then drags his depleted team the next year to the third round.
That's a good draft pick.
Any second rounder that plays like a first rounder in the two years after being drafted is a good pick.
Brendl didn't improve at all after getting drafted.
|
You’re arguing that a second round pick who topped out as a bad ECHL player was a good pick because he might have arguably raised his value for a year before it plummeted?
Again junior results mean nothing to the Calgary Flames. We don’t draft to try and win world juniors we draft to try and get NHL talent
He won the memorial cup before his draft IIRC, on arguably the most stacked Junior team ever assembled
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:17 AM
|
#88
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Dallas
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
So you draft a player and then he literally becomes one of the best goalies in junior, wins a world a memorial cup then drags his depleted team the next year to the third round.
That's a good draft pick.
Any second rounder that plays like a first rounder in the two years after being drafted is a good pick.
Brendl didn't improve at all after getting drafted.
|
Not really. A pick that can’t even make your top minor pro team is not a good pick injury or not
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:21 AM
|
#89
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesfan05
Not really. A pick that can’t even make your top minor pro team is not a good pick injury or not
|
Especially a second round pick
There are a ton of goalies who heat up for a memorial cup or world junior then accomplish little at the pro level. Baffling to label any prospect a success for his D+1 season, let alone one that sees zero success afterwards
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:25 AM
|
#90
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
You guys would be terrible GMs if you hold your amateur scouting accountable for kids that have injuries.
Nice performance review standards.
I'll just leave it though ... I'm not going to convince you. But in my books if you draft a kid that goes on to star in a WJC I'm pretty happy with draft performance.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:25 AM
|
#91
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Dallas
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
Especially a second round pick
There are a ton of goalies who heat up for a memorial cup or world junior then accomplish little at the pro level. Baffling to label any prospect a success for his D+1 season, let alone one that sees zero success afterwards
|
He was a complete failure like most of the flames goalie picks in the last 30 years
They can make some excuse for him but in no way he was a good pick
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:29 AM
|
#92
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
You guys would be terrible GMs if you hold your amateur scouting accountable for kids that have injuries.
Nice performance review standards.
I'll just leave it though ... I'm not going to convince you. But in my books if you draft a kid that goes on to star in a WJC I'm pretty happy with draft performance.
|
So Sieloff is a good pick too?
He won gold at world juniors and his development was negatively impacted with an awful staph infection
Just curious on the logic here
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:30 AM
|
#93
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Indiana
|
I think Parsons was a good pick because he had good stats during his draft year, and then played well in this draft +1.
Compare him to Mason McDonald who had bad stats in his draft year and then bad stats moving forward. Now that was a bad pick.
Guys like Irving, Gillies and Parsons were fine as picks. The problems were with development. And problems (injuries) can happen with development no matter what. The team only has so much control.
No one thinks Wolf was a bad pick. Great stats pre and post draft.
Smaller goalies aren't as bad as they're made out to be. Look how good Nedeljkovic and Saros just play this year. Casey DeSmith had a solid season as well. I don't really have the evidence to support this, but it seems like they also tend to be more durable than taller goalies (although Raanta is always injured). Halak is still quite good for his age. Thomas peaked in his late thirties.
The Flames are great at drafting and developing small players. But they're bad at developing goalies.
Hopefully Wolf stays in line with the first trend rather than the latter.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 1qqaaz For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:38 AM
|
#94
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
So Sieloff is a good pick too?
He won gold at world juniors and his development was negatively impacted with an awful staph infection
Just curious on the logic here
|
Seems like the logic you’re choosing to use is one of hindsight. When Parsons was selected where he was, it was a good pick.
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:44 AM
|
#95
|
Franchise Player
|
On Parsons, I also find it helpful to look at the next picks to get a sense of who else was a possibility.
The best next pick after Parsons (at 54) is actually Dube (at 56) apart from that in the rest of the 2nd round you have Dylan Grambell and Carl Grundstrom as the only NHLers.
You have to go into the 3rd round to find the next great pick - which is Adam Fox.
After that you are going to Victor Mete in the 4th round to find the next established NHLer.
How is that not some terrific work by the scouting staff in that draft? They arguably have the two best picks from around #50 through the rest of the draft.
|
|
|
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
1qqaaz,
atb,
bdubbs,
BeltlineFan,
Calgary4LIfe,
Classic_Sniper,
Dan403,
Dion,
Fire,
Funkhouser,
getbak,
GioforPM,
Joborule,
powderjunkie,
rogermexico,
Savvy27,
Textcritic,
TOfan
|
05-29-2021, 10:54 AM
|
#96
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOfan
Seems like the logic you’re choosing to use is one of hindsight. When Parsons was selected where he was, it was a good pick.
|
I mean it’s hard not to use hindsight when evaluating a draft choice from 2016. No?
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 10:56 AM
|
#97
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
On Parsons, I also find it helpful to look at the next picks to get a sense of who else was a possibility.
The best next pick after Parsons (at 54) is actually Dube (at 56) apart from that in the rest of the 2nd round you have Dylan Grambell and Carl Grundstrom as the only NHLers.
You have to go into the 3rd round to find the next great pick - which is Adam Fox.
After that you are going to Victor Mete in the 4th round to find the next established NHLer.
How is that not some terrific work by the scouting staff in that draft? They arguably have the two best picks from around #50 through the rest of the draft.
|
They wanted Parsons at 35 so they had him ranked ahead of Carter Hart, Kyrou, Debrincat, Hronek, Samuel Girard etc FYI
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 11:05 AM
|
#98
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Was thinking the same and I could do that.
The problem is we are really only looking at three draft years and comparing it to the league.
2015 2016 and 2017
But if you look at 2015 to 2020 only Washington, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have had less draft capital, which is a pretty good strike against Treliving from that crowd.
Moving picks as if a contender without getting any results of a contender.
Aside from that though the Flames have the second best games played / draft capital spent (behind Columbus) in this time frame.
To me that jumps off the page when it comes to what myself and others are saying. They're finding value despite spending too many picks.
The teams mentioned above ... Washington, Pittsburgh and St. Louis (Calgary's peers for draft capital) are worst, 5th worse and 10th in this category (St. Louis doing quite well).
Games played isn't an impact stat, but it's a pretty objective quick measure that is valued equally.
Calgary is 8th in games played in this time frame.
|
The irony, then, is that if Calgary's strength is its amateur scouting department that we are really not playing to our strengths by trading away so many picks. If anything, we should have been trying to acquire as many picks as we could to maximize the value of our strong amateur scouting.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to delayedreflex For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-29-2021, 11:06 AM
|
#99
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
On Parsons, I also find it helpful to look at the next picks to get a sense of who else was a possibility.
The best next pick after Parsons (at 54) is actually Dube (at 56) apart from that in the rest of the 2nd round you have Dylan Grambell and Carl Grundstrom as the only NHLers.
You have to go into the 3rd round to find the next great pick - which is Adam Fox.
After that you are going to Victor Mete in the 4th round to find the next established NHLer.
How is that not some terrific work by the scouting staff in that draft? They arguably have the two best picks from around #50 through the rest of the draft.
|
To me this is another huge strike against Treliving (first being coaching choices). His drafting department is seemingly one of the best in the league, yet Treliving left them with league bottom draft capital. I don't know how much of this ownership pressure, but it's really disheartening to think of where the Flames would be if they hadn't rushed the rebuild.
|
|
|
05-29-2021, 11:09 AM
|
#100
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
They wanted Parsons at 35 so they had him ranked ahead of Carter Hart, Kyrou, Debrincat, Hronek, Samuel Girard etc FYI
|
Meh. We hear all the time who teams wanted at certain spots, particularly to express how "surprised" they were where they got him.
Maybe if The Cat was available and Parsons at 35 - they would have gone with the former. We don't know. Seems silly to criticize the team for fictional scenarios.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 PM.
|
|