[News] With the 214th OA pick, the Flames select G Dustin Wolf

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I honestly don't remember them trading a top prospect in a long long time.

Also uh. You don't?



(different reasons, I know, I know, but still)

[1qqaaz]

Tim Erixon was kind of the top prospect when he was traded.
Ahead of Greg Nemisz and arguably TJ Brodie (who was emerging at that time)

[sketchyt]

There was a time when size was a more important factor (think Berra, Karlsson years), but goalie coaches have since moved onto valuing athleticism at least equally to size.

Wolf has plenty of that, but I was actually pretty bearish on him because of the lack of size. He's a hyper athletic goalie and originally I thought he would trend towards Malcolm Subban territory... moves really well, relies on it, and guesses.

But this preseason I watched him very closely in the period he played. I changed my mind.

Yes, he's extremely mobile but the interesting thing is that he seems to be aware of his lack of size. Has the core strength to play upright when he needs to and his reads on plays are fantastic. He is not a guesser. Understands depth really well (which IMO is one of the main things between AHL-> NHL) and uses his explosiveness in a really composed/compact way.

So yeah, combined with his AHL results I'm now pretty bullish on his career trajectory and the Juuse Saros comparable is a pretty good one. Another comparable I would use is Jaroslav Halak.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by getbak

The bulk of the goalies in the NHL are in the 6'2" - 6'3" range. Dryden and Murray are the only Cup-winning goalies listed at 6'4" and they're the tallest to ever win the Cup.



Wolf is much shorter than the biggest goalies in the league, but he's not significantly shorter than a lot of guys who have had success in the league.

I think this depends very much on what is considered "significantly shorter," and I honestly don't really know in this instance. However, I do think the following two factors are worth careful consideration here: 1) sub-6'1" goalies have not been especially common nor successful in the NHL for a long time now. There are a handful of outliers like Saros and Halas, but even these guys do not look all that capable of sustaining elite-level, championship quality goaltending. 2) We can't be sure, but it certainly seems like Wolf's height/weight are being artificially inflated like other small players such as Johnny Gaudreau or Matthew Phillips. I do tend to think that Wolf is frequently talked about being closer in height to the NHL average than he actually is. Maybe he will ve the one to finally make an elite-level NHL impact where so many undersized goalies have failed, but the fact remains that the odds are still stacked heavily against him.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

There was a time when size was a more important factor (think Berra, Karlsson years), but goalie coaches have since moved onto valuing athleticism at least equally to size...

I am not convinced this is true. If it were then I would expect a significantly denser variety of different-size goalies in thd NHL.

So yeah, combined with his AHL results I'm now pretty bullish on his career trajectory and the Juuse Saros comparable is a pretty good one. Another comparable I would use is Jaroslav Halak.

I would consider both Galax and Saros good, but not great NHL goalies. If Wolf reaches this sort of potential that is an excellent achievement, but it is still a huge distance from being an elite-level NHL starter like several here are projecting.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Also uh. You don't?



(different reasons, I know, I know, but still)

That was contractual reasons though, he refused to sign here and was never going to sign here, and publicly admitted as much.

The last real "big" future piece they traded was the first they traded for Hamonic, and that was horrible.

Really the issue in the past was more that we've missed on goalies than we've traded them away.

Kidd over Brodeur
McDonald over Demko

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this depends very much on what is considered "significantly shorter," and I honestly don't really know in this instance. However, I do think the following two factors are worth careful consideration here: 1) sub-6'1" goalies have not been especially common nor successful in the NHL for a long time now. There are a handful of outliers like Saros and Halas, but even these guys do not look all that capable of sustaining elite-level, championship quality goaltending. 2) We can't be sure, but it certainly seems like Wolf's height/weight are being artificially inflated like other small players such as Johnny Gaudreau or Matthew Phillips. I do tend to think that Wolf is frequently talked about being closer in height to the NHL average than he actually is. Maybe he will ve the one to finally make an elite-level NHL impact where so many undersized goalies have failed, but the fact remains that the odds are still stacked heavily against him.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Tim Thomas was pretty small. Jonathan Quick is also below average height. Both were/are elite-level goaltenders.

Other decent goalies of similar height: Raanta, Nedeljkovic, Nabokov, Khodobin, Lundqvist.

Based on how Wolf has performed at the AHL (and at all levels) so far, I think the odds look much better than they did during his draft year.

Also, any seventh round pick at any position are going to have odds heavily stacked against them. If the idea is that it's slim that Wolf becomes an elite championship pedigree goaltender, then fine. I can say that about 99% of prospects of any size, age and position.

The idea that goalies HAVE to be big at the NHL level is an outdated concept. EDIT: This line of thinking changed fairly recently. This is why we haven't seen a huge influx of small goalies yet.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That was contractual reasons though, he refused to sign here and was never going to sign here, and publicly admitted as much.

The last real "big" future piece they traded was the first they traded for Hamonic, and that was horrible.

Really the issue in the past was more that we've missed on goalies than we've traded them away.

Kidd over Brodeur
McDonald over Demko

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

For me it's just the hockey gods being cruel to us.

The fact that we traded up with New Jersey to draft Kidd and the fact that they took Brodeur with our pick - that's just mean. No one did anything wrong at the time, but how it worked out is pure cruelty.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

That's partially fair but the New Jersey scouts seemed to like Brodeur over Kidd, or else they would have just taken Kidd with their pick.

In the end it is hindsight but the Devils got that decision right and the Flames got it wrong.

I'm just happy the Devils didn't draft Doug Weight with the extra second they picked up from us...because that would have really been the cherry on top.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

I tend to think Kidd would have had a better career had he been drafted by the Devils as he would have been on a better team that employed the trap to perfection. I don't know if he would have been Brodeur good but in that system he would have put up much better stats.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

They've had so many near-misses with star goalies over the years is all I meant. Giguere, Roloson, Brodeur, Anderson.

Kiprusoff the other way more than makes up for it though.

[Bingo]

This is great ... love the jumping smash

https://twitter.com/user/status/1471589018110349313

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

I believe you said the same thing about picking Phaneuf over Getzlaf. Yes, there is a benefit of hindsight. But no, this was absolutely the wrong call at the time, because they have got it all wrong. They probably had their reasons for making these calls/choices, but those reasons (even if valid) were also obviously wrong, because they had led them to make the wrong selections.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I believe you said the same thing about picking Phaneuf over Getzlaf. Yes, there is a benefit of hindsight. But no, this was absolutely the wrong call at the time, because they have got it all wrong. They probably had their reasons for making these calls/choices, but those reasons (even if valid) were also obviously wrong, because they had led them to make the wrong selections.

The word consensus can be a slippery slope, as I'm not sure there is one. Media has lists, central scouting has lists but I doubt teams agree there is a consensus.

Having said that there are different types of "wrong".

Taking a player well before most see him going is a gamble that can prove to be a mistake.

Taking a player at a spot that most media/CSB/predictions have him going certainly isn't "right", but it's less "wrong" then gambling that you know better than everyone else.

The Flames did the gamble on Jankowski and Morris, but Kidd wasn't considered a gamble at the time.

[Canada 02]

The 1990 Hockey News draft issue (Bob McKenzie was still their draft guru back then) had Trevor Kidd as the 5th best prospect after Nedved, Ricchi, Primeau and Nolan (not necessarily in that order)

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Kidd over Brodeur was the right call at the time. Kidd was one of the best prospects to come along in a long time. And at the time he was more highly touted than Brodeur.
Didn't work out that way - but the Kidd over Brodeur thing is one of the classic examples of the benefits of hindsight.

But the thing is the Flames just drafted a goalie in the first round in 1988 (Jason Muzzatti). I don't think they "needed" another goalie prospect at the time. Especially since they also had Mike Vernon as their long term starter

They shouldn't have traded up to draft Kidd. They should have either "gambled" with a lesser goalie prospect in Brodeur (or even Felix Potvin) or drafted a different position all together. Looking at the draft, they could've taken Bryan Smolinksi or Chris Simon (to be fair, there are a lot of busts drafted after the 20th pick).

[Reggie Dunlop]

I think if Wolf can be a reliable NHL backup/tandem guy it's a home run. Especially for a 7th rounder.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The word consensus can be a slippery slope, as I'm not sure there is one. Media has lists, central scouting has lists but I doubt teams agree there is a consensus.

Having said that there are different types of "wrong".

Taking a player well before most see him going is a gamble that can prove to be a mistake.

Taking a player at a spot that most media/CSB/predictions have him going certainly isn't "right", but it's less "wrong" then gambling that you know better than everyone else.

The Flames did the gamble on Jankowski and Morris, but Kidd wasn't considered a gamble at the time.

I agree with the word "gamble". My very first post on this forum was about the draft being a crapshoot (coming from one of the top scouts for the Flames). Which, again, speaks to the right vs. wrong. There are right calls and wrong calls. In these particular two examples, the calls made were wrong. They might have been more or less justifiable or explainable at the time. But that didn't make them right.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

The 1990 Hockey News draft issue (Bob McKenzie was still their draft guru back then) had Trevor Kidd as the 5th best prospect after Nedved, Ricchi, Primeau and Nolan (not necessarily in that order)

that guy at 6 turned out ok