2016 NHL Draft

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I know I wouldn't trade 6th overall for a 32 year old goalie with concussion issues.

I mean he's a good goalie, but that wouldn't be a smart long term move IMO.

You would be able to get a quality goalie for a lot cheaper price than that in the currently saturated goalie market.

He's stunk up the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years he made it, he's turning 32 this year, has a history of concussions, and the Pens will be losing him in a year for nothing.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by rvd123

Fleury is worth a hell of a lot more than 6th overall, go back to HF boards with that crap.

Considering what guys like Luongo, Schnieder and Bishop have gone for in the recent past, I think you might want to re-think that.

[oldschoolcalgary]

with Nylander, you can be "small" (quotes because Nylander isn't really that small at 6'0", 172+/-) but you can still play with some jam to your game...

do guys like Kucherov and Johnson, or Drouin play soft? I don't really see that...they are pretty tenacious players... No, they won't necessarily win any cycle battles either, but don't know if soft is a fair label...

Kane, Panarin... Donskoi... even Gaudreau are more perimeter players, but they don't shy away from the tough areas of the ice either.

I don't know what kind of player Nylander is right now...but i don't recall ever thinking Drouin was hard on the puck either...until seeing him in the playoffs, where he has been very impressive

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Is this a serious post?

C'mon Ashasx - you don't want to give up a top 6 pick for a goalie with a lower career save percentage than Jonas Hiller, Kari Lehtonen, Antti Niemi, and Jimmy Howard.

The Leafs should be dangling Matthews and 1st overall for the honor of having Marc Andre Fleury play goalie for them.

Why would they care that he has the 5th worst save percentage of goalies that have played 200 or more games in the NHL - http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/recor...e-leaders.html

In all honesty if Fleury's NMC means that they will have to protect him in the draft and leave Murray unprotected they will be begging the Flames to take that contract, not asking for the 6th overall pick.

[Enoch Root]

Trading the 6th overall pick for Fleury would immediately result in several 'Should Treliving Be Fired?' threads.

And rightly so.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

But I think it illustrates my general point about power forward complimentary types vs pure skill finesse types. Tkachuk I see more in that Tkachuk, Guerin, Iginla, Roberts type mold. Nylander I see more in that Huselius, Val Bure, Michael Nylander type mold. I could be wrong.

Why can't Nylander be like other "pure skill finesse types" like Kane, Voracek, Gaudreau and Tarasenko? I feel like you picked a couple of failed finesse types, but there are quite a few finesse types that manage to drive offences in the playoffs.

Based on the rest of your commentary regarding a complimentary power forward, I would argue that some of your comparables don't make any sense. Iginla and Tkachuk drove their own lines, and were not complimentary. They were also Hall of Famers, which is far above any of the comparables for Nylander. Unless you're arguing that Tkachuk is basically a tier above Nylander in terms of potential.

I would say your comparables would be Guerin, Roberts, Kunitz, Penner, Lucic type. Which is fine too, but isn't as much of a slam dunk when you take out the two Hall of Famers.

I think you're underrating the value of a pure finesse type that can drive a line.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Anybody agree, disagree?

Out of thanks, but very much agree.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You're operating on a base assumption that

1) Matthew Tkachuk is a power forward (he's not.

Of course definitions like "power forward" are fluid, but I would think pretty generally Tkachuk is considered

a typical power forward.

or

shaping up an intimidating power forward

or

Tkachuk might be considered the best power forward in the draft

or

a heart-and-soul power forward

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's a lot harder to acquire a core player. A David Backes, Marian Hossa, Nathan Horton (prime), Dustin Brown (prime, before knee injuries), Ondrej Palat, or Jamie Benn. You call the Lightning and ask for Palat, they hang up on you right away. These are guys you surround with complimentary players.

Seems to me Tkachuk's upside is very much in line with players like those.

You don't think there's anything strange about the experts having Tkachuk as a consensus top 5 pick and you having him outside the top 10? How can you be so sure you're not underrating him, his skill level and his ability to be a core player? Why should we believe you over the experts who've watched him more times and for longer?

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

And being hard on the puck is also not being undervalued. It's extremely important. But it's also a mostly coachable trait, not an innate one.

I don't think its coachable for most players. It's a style of game and most players don't drastically change their style after being drafted. Some do, but most don't.

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah I don't get how you can recognize Ondrej Palat as a guy who overcame his draft status to become a core player - to only then completely write off that Tkachuk has any potential to be that type of player in the NHL.

[Lanny_McDonald]

@flames draft watcher

I know you like Tkachuk. I mean, you really like Tkachuk. But I just want to point out to you that you have built up an expectation for Matthew Tkachuk that he will never live up to. You're even making up terms to pump his tires.

"Elite complimentary powerforward."

Matthew Tkachuk is not elite in any shape or form. Please point out a skill where he is "elite." His best skill is probably his instincts. He knows where to be to make himself available to his line mates. But even that he isn't elite. It's not like you watch him play and think, holy crap, this guy is Kreskin out there. Other than that he doesn't display a single elite skill. He's not a top end skater. He is not a top end passer. He is not a top end finisher. Most of all, he is NOT a power forward! He's no more of a power forward than German Titov was when he played for the Flames. Tkachuk does not display the qualities that make me believe he could be a power forward at any level. To be honest I don't think he's even the best physical forward on his team.

The one thing that Tkachuk has been very good at is finding himself on the the same line with the best player on his team. First it was Auston Matthews on the USNTDP, then Marner and Dvorak on the Knights. I'm not certain that is enough to make him a player you invest a lot in.

Heck, outside of the top three I'm pretty much underwhelmed by this draft class and don't see the huge potential that is being talked about. I see a bunch of kids that "might" be 2nd or 3rd liners. I don't see a single thing player that makes me believe they are going to step it up to the best league in the world and be a top line player. I don't see a single player that would make me believe they could play at the level of Monahan or Bennett, let alone Gaudreau. Just want to try and keep this in perspective.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's a lot harder to acquire a core player. A David Backes, Marian Hossa, Nathan Horton (prime), Dustin Brown (prime, before knee injuries), Ondrej Palat, or Jamie Benn. You call the Lightning and ask for Palat, they hang up on you right away. These are guys you surround with complimentary players.

Aside from Jamie Benn, I would consider all your listed players to be complimentary players, even when they were in their prime. I would think TB would be more inclined to trading Palat (your comparable for Dubois?) ahead of Tyler Johnson (comparable to Nylander?), Hedman (comparable to one of the 3 Ds), or Kucherov (comparable to Tkachuk?). Not sure what your point is with this argument??

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You don't think there's anything strange about the experts having Tkachuk as a consensus top 5 pick and you having him outside the top 10? How can you be so sure you're not underrating him, his skill level and his ability to be a core player?

1) Because consensus means very little, it has in the past and will continue to in the future. My list is who I want my team to add not what I think the draft order will be
2) Because he's done nothing to show me that I'm underrating him. I'm not the one writing the article showing he's not 2nd, not 3rd, but FOURTH on his team in ES Primary Points. I'm just the one reading it and seeing what I think confirmed.

Why should we believe you over the experts who've watched him more times and for longer?

Don't believe me. Just don't expect me to be convinced by your preaching and attempts at indoctrinating me on how he's an "elite complimentary player".

I don't think its coachable for most players. It's a style of game and most players don't drastically change their style after being drafted. Some do, but most don't.

Being hard on puck is not a style of game. It's an individual trait that's a combination of many things. Coaching, role, physical development, and innate traits like determination, coordination, and willpower. The innate traits are what you look for in a prospect, but the rest are what you look to develop. The biggest mistake you can make is overvaluing "pro-readiness" ahead of innate traits.

Yeah I don't get how you can recognize Ondrej Palat as a guy who overcame his draft status to become a core player - to only then completely write off that Tkachuk has any potential to be that type of player in the NHL.

I didn't write Tkachuk off entirely at all. But I do think he's more likely to be a complimentary piece than a core one.

Aside from Jamie Benn, I would consider all your listed players to be complimentary players, even when they were in their prime. I

I would define a complimentary player as a non-core piece, a guy you don't look to trade to make your team better. Tough-to-acquire pieces vs pieces floating around on the market.

Maybe a guy like Dustin Brown isn't a gamebreaker, but he's not as easy to acquire as a guy like Alex Burrows. There's a separation. Some guys you accumulate to build around, others are themselves the "around". When you're picking top 6 you suck enough that you're not looking for the around.

And if your team has expendable core pieces it can acquire core pieces that better fit the team needs. Drafting for "need" is dumb.

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I didn't write Tkachuk off entirely at all. But I do think he's more likely to be a complimentary piece than a core one.

Is that a problem? With Bennett, Monahan, Gaudreau, Gio, Brodie, Hamilton and Backlund, I would argue that we already have enough guys that could be core pieces moving forward. Yes, of course you want more, but getting a complimentary piece is still useful. If he can put up 50 points whilst riding the coattails of Monahan and Gaudreau, or 40 points whilst on a line with Bennett, I think that would be more than acceptable. We aren't asking him to be the go to guy on his line, we'll be asking him to help give support to his line mates.

I really don't think that your detractions are that big of an issue.

[MissTeeks]

Are you guys going to have this same fight every day for the next 50 days?

[mile]

Originally Posted by New Era

@flames draft watcher

I know you like Tkachuk. I mean, you really like Tkachuk. But I just want to point out to you that you have built up an expectation for Matthew Tkachuk that he will never live up to. You're even making up terms to pump his tires.

"Elite complimentary powerforward."

Matthew Tkachuk is not elite in any shape or form. Please point out a skill where he is "elite." His best skill is probably his instincts. He knows where to be to make himself available to his line mates. But even that he isn't elite. It's not like you watch him play and think, holy crap, this guy is Kreskin out there. Other than that he doesn't display a single elite skill. He's not a top end skater. He is not a top end passer. He is not a top end finisher. Most of all, he is NOT a power forward! He's no more of a power forward than German Titov was when he played for the Flames. Tkachuk does not display the qualities that make me believe he could be a power forward at any level. To be honest I don't think he's even the best physical forward on his team.

I don't agree that it is a made up term. I don't know if "elite" is a good word but if Tkachuk is a complimentary forward, he's going to be a very good one. Lots of scouting reports have described Tkachuk as a power forward or a power winger. So I don't think "Elite complimentary power forward" is a bad term.

Originally Posted by New Era

The one thing that Tkachuk has been very good at is finding himself on the the same line with the best player on his team. First it was Auston Matthews on the USNTDP, then Marner and Dvorak on the Knights. I'm not certain that is enough to make him a player you invest a lot in.

That what makes him a great complimentary player. Not every line can be stacked with star players. For every star player you need guys who are able keep up with them. If you made up a list of forwards who have played a secondary role to the star on their line for most of their careers, I think Tkachuk has the potential to be at the top of that list. I think in that sense he can be "elite".

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Why can't Nylander be like other "pure skill finesse types" like Kane, Voracek, Gaudreau and Tarasenko? I feel like you picked a couple of failed finesse types, but there are quite a few finesse types that manage to drive offences in the playoffs.

Well for starters I said those comparisons I made might have been a little unfair to Nylander since scouts do say he doesn't shy away from the boards whereas Huselius and Alex's Dad weren't willing to engage and win those physical battles.

Kane is one of the top few forwards in the league and Nylander isn't even a consensus top 5 pick this draft so I don't expect him to be one of the top forwards in the league. Voracek is considerably bigger and stronger than Nylander and that makes him harder to check and shut down. But I don't think Voracek drives the play as much as Giroux does. Gaudreau IMO is a lot quicker, more agile, and more elusive than Nylander. Tarasenko weights 220 lbs and thus can fight through checking a lot more easily than the 172 lb Nylander. Some guys are built slight and some guys are tanks. Tarasenko is a tank. With Nylander's frame I'm not sure he's ever going to be as strong as a Tarasenko.

All that said I do think Nylander has the upside to be a 1st line finesse forward. I think his upside is huge if he adds enough strength and is willing to fight through NHL checking. Will I be upset if we pick him? No, because I'm confident that the Flames of all teams will be comfortable with his hardness on the puck vs softness if we're willing to take him top 6 in a draft with a great top end.

But in general I don't value 1st line finesse forwards as much as your average fan unless that is what we were lacking. If the Flames had Monahan, Bennett, Backes and Lucic and didn't have Gaudreau then I think Nylander would make a ton more sense because we would be lacking that pure skill finesse winger to compliment the powerforwards in Backes/Lucic.

Originally Posted by Regorium

Based on the rest of your commentary regarding a complimentary power forward, I would argue that some of your comparables don't make any sense. Iginla and Tkachuk drove their own lines, and were not complimentary. They were also Hall of Famers, which is far above any of the comparables for Nylander. Unless you're arguing that Tkachuk is basically a tier above Nylander in terms of potential.

I do think Tkachuk is a tier above Nylander in terms of potential. But that is partially based on my philosophy that finesse wingers are less valuable overall than 1st line powerforwards, top two line centres with size and top 3 d-men. I think you can trade for a 30 goal scoring finesse winger. It's extremely hard to trade for the other commodities I mentioned.

If Iginla drove his line by himself then why were we always looking for a #1 centre to get him the puck? I mean he did his best and he was one of the best shooters in the NHL. But he would have flourished with Gaudreau and Monahan as his LW/C and would have been the complimentary player on a line like that. He was forced to do it all because we failed to support him. And he actually became less of a power forward and more of a sniper as his career went on.

Originally Posted by Regorium

I think you're underrating the value of a pure finesse type that can drive a line.

It's a possibility. In general I don't think finesse wingers drive lines (there are obvious exceptions like Kane and Gaudreau). I think the centre is more the player who drives the line typically. In general I value wingers the least. And if you're a finesse winger it means you aren't contributing as much when you don't have the puck and when you aren't scoring. I think finesse wingers can be pushed out of the game sometimes by bigger, strong defensemen. The bigger and stronger you are the less likely you are to be pushed out of the game.

Semin, Kovalev, Kessel, Baertschi are all examples of what I consider finesse wingers. If they are driving your line then it means your centre depth is complete crap. I think powerforwards can drive a line as much as a finesse winger can.

I think part of the problem we're having in discussing this issues is semantics. What I mean by complimentary player isn't necessarily the same thing as GranteedEV means when he uses that word. What I mean by power forward isn't the same as how some of you use that term. But we still try to get our ideas across.

I view powerforwards as complimentary players because they compliment the strengths/weaknesses of the other players on their line. Gaudreau dominates using speed, agility and finesse. So in order to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses you pair him with a player who emphasizes strength, power and grit. Gaudreau excels at everything outside of board battles, standing in front of the net taking abuse, etc. Because those things are important for generating offence you compliment a Gaudreau by giving him a power forward who excels at winning board battles, driving the net, taking abuse, protecting the puck. There are different roles players play on a line, finesse winger, playmaking centre, power forward. Powerforwards compliment their centres and compliment their finesse wingers. That is why they are called complimentary players IMO.

To me complimentary does not mean unskilled grinder. It does not mean a role player with low upside. It's the less flashy role. It's the less sexy role. But it's no less important to the makeup of an unstoppable line. IMO if we want our top two lines to be hard to shut down then we need to find the players who compliment what we already have. What do we have? Two potential 1st line centres in Monahan/Bennett. We have one of the best pure finesse wingers in the entire NHL in Gaudreau. We have some skill in undersized packages coming up in Shinkaruk and Mangiapane. What do we lack? That complimentary power forward who excels at everything we lack in the top 6. We need someone with a high skill who can do the dirty work for our existing pieces. We need a guy who wins board battles, drives the net with defenders draped on him but still has the skill to find Monahan, Bennett and Gaudreau when they are open and get open for them so that he can finish on their good passes. IMO we need a Tkachuk or a Dubois much more than we need another average or undersized high skill guy. IMO that would give us a more ideal makeup in our lines.

[mile]

I like Red Line's spotlight they did on Tkachuk back in March:
http://www.redlinereport.com/wp-cont...March-2016.pdf

Scouting Report: The prototype of a modern power winger. Has great size and strength, and wins every puck battle around walls and corners. Makes power moves to the net. Has outstanding vision and playmaking skills. Has a real mean streak if you get him riled up, but would prefer to beat you with perfectly timed and placed passes or a wicked snap shot. Dominant force can take over games. Will hit, fight, score, and is one of the most competitive #######s you’ll ever find.

It's interesting to me that despite having seemingly average size at 6'1"/198, they rank his size/strength as an A+ on the report card and say he has great size and strength in this scouting report. He'll definitely grow and add muscle as he gets older, that's very intriguing.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Is that a problem? With Bennett, Monahan, Gaudreau, Gio, Brodie, Hamilton and Backlund, I would argue that we already have enough guys that could be core pieces moving forward

Good teams have better forward cores. Where does Gaudreau-Monahan-Bennett-Backlund stack up against anybody?

Yes, of course you want more, but getting a complimentary piece is still useful. If he can put up 50 points whilst riding the coattails of Monahan and Gaudreau, or 40 points whilst on a line with Bennett, I don't see that as a bad thing.

It's a bad thing if there's a potential core piece available (which may be Dubois Brown Jost or Keller). If not, then it's a good thing because it's always nice to add a player who can likey play in a top 6 role.

[VladtheImpaler]

So much slander directed at the Greatest, otherwise known as Kristian Huselius. Huselius certainly drove the play for his line - he was the QB, and the reason for our offense. He made Langkow a 30 G scorer and Phaneuf a Norris candidate. He was our best player in that series against the big, bad Ducks, and, but for a crossbar, would have closed out that series in 6 and sent us on to a sure Cup win.
Nylander might only be Huselius? Nylander wishes he will be that good.