Flames win THW's 2016 mock draft

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I keep watching Matthews and waiting to be wow'ed and see a guy that gets compared to Eichel.

And I am left wanting every time.

Great player, sure. But I just haven't seen anything to warrant the hype.

If the Flames won the lottery, I would be all for taking a package to move down to 2nd or 3rd

Eichel is dynamic, explosive, thinks the game nearly the same level as Crosby/McDavid/Gaudreau. Matthews will never be that.

But I think Matthews can be somewhere between everything good about Jamie Benn and everything good about Tyler Seguin..

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

But I think Matthews can be somewhere between everything good about Jamie Benn and everything good about Tyler Seguin..

Yeah, I'd take that player.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Split98

Puljujarvi with the #1 fills an organizational need opposed to the BPA strategy the guys up north have employed with little success. It'd be a little-loved decision, but I'd have to think we'd all approve down the road!

Regardless of where we pick, I got this feeling watching Puljujarvi at the Jrs (small sample, I understand) that he is going to end up being the consensus #1 of that draft in hindsite.

LOL if you think the BPA over organizational need is the problem up north. Its not.

Problem for them is identifying BPA.

[shotinthebacklund]

I actually have to agree with this article.

If flames land a number one by chance.( dont think this team is poor enough for high odds.) I think you take a really long hard look at trading down. Not only trading down to 2 but to 3. If they look at it and are happy with the talent levels and projections of both high end RWers you may have a beauty bidding war over top Pick. CBJ just traded their franchise center.

I am setting sights for a mid round first pick and will be happy with anything worse or better. Hmm odd

[Bunk]

Part of me wants to pick third so we don't have to choose and wonder. Just like Monahan and Bennett - both sort of "fell" to us as the obvious choice as the last available at the top tier. Both are working out.

[TheOnlyBilko]

Ummm this wasn't The Hockey News (THN)...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I think if you wanna take the winger you trade down 1 or 2 spots.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

LOL if you think the BPA over organizational need is the problem up north. Its not.

Problem for them is identifying BPA.

It's more that refusing to accept that you can't just take the BPA and then not make moves to adjust your team when all your picks end up being the same type of player.

The draft is their Stanley Cup now, and they are too afraid to trade any of those picks.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

LOL if you think the BPA over organizational need is the problem up north. Its not.

Problem for them is identifying BPA.

It's also a problem for them to let their scouting staff makes the damn picks.

Katz himself meddled with the Yakupov pick with the scouting staff wanting Murray and a couple of the higher ups wanting Reinhart. Of course maybe Trouba would've been best.

Then in 2013 the scouting staff wanted Nichushkin but because they had f'd up the Yakupov draft and didn't take a d-man they needed one bad so MacTavish overrode the staff and selected Nurse.

It's always amusing to look bad

Hall, RNH, Yakupov, Nurse, McDavid VS Seguin, Landeskog, Murray/Trouba, Nichushkin, McDavid

Hmmm tough call right? LOL

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think if you wanna take the winger you trade down 1 or 2 spots.

I get the sentiment. But why would a team interested in Matthews give you anything for your pick? If you're offering the pick to draft Puljujärvi why wouldn't they just pick Matthews themselves at 2?

If you're trading down for 3, who's to say that Puljujärvi doesn't go at 2?

Not questioning yours and others sentiments that we should do that if we ever were to draft #1. I just don't get why this would happen.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

I get the sentiment. But why would a team interested in Matthews give you anything for your pick? If you're offering the pick to draft Puljujärvi why wouldn't they just pick Matthews themselves at 2?

If you're trading down for 3, who's to say that Puljujärvi doesn't go at 2?

Cause you would just pick Matthews at #1 and if there is an org need, you trade a center for a winger later.

[Poe969]

If we got the first overall pick, I think there's 0% chance they trade it. The team has never had a first overall pick and at this rate, it would be one of the final missing pieces this team needs. It would mean to much to the team to not keep IMO.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Cause you would just pick Matthews at #1 and if there is an org need, you trade a center for a winger later.

But if Puljujärvi is the guy we want, the suggestion is that we trade down to get him and an asset.

I'm just wondering why the team at #2 (Toronto in this case) would give up anything to draft Matthews at #1, when they know they can have him at #2 with us drafting Puljujärvi.

It's not the first time I've heard it suggested that a team does this. It came up a few times with the Oilers drafting #1 OA yet again.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

But if Puljujärvi is the guy we want, the suggestion is that we trade down to get him and an asset.

I'm just wondering why the team at #2 (Toronto in this case) would give up anything to draft Matthews at #1, when they know they can have him at #2 with us drafting Puljujärvi.

It's not the first time I've heard it suggested that a team does this. It came up a few times with the Oilers drafting #1 OA yet again.

cause they wouldn't know

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Split98

I'm just wondering why the team at #2 (Toronto in this case) would give up anything to draft Matthews at #1, when they know they can have him at #2 with us drafting Puljujärvi..

Basically in this case the Flames would have to convince the Leafs that there is at least one other team interested in Matthews and if the Leafs really want him they need to make a trade to move up.

Personally I think if the Flames really want the big Finn, just take him at #1.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

This is the first time I've seen Puljujarvi ahead of Matthews. THN are some thick headed idiots who put way too much stock in World Junior performance.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, B.I.F.
(As SureLoss noted, it is THW versus THN).

For the record, I am the insert appropriate adjective here scribe of this article.

To clarify, as noted in the article:
- mock drafts are for entertainment purposes only (maybe more for my own enjoyment); it's not my rankings
- ran the simulator once and once only. I debated (before I ran it) if I would base it on it or not. When I ran it and the Flames came up, couldn't resist running with it
- I noted in the Flames pick that if they decided not to draft Auston "Powers", they would likely trade out of that position to gain more assets in the process.
- I, for one, depending on where they would hypothetically pick him, would be thrilled with Puljujarvi as a Flames prospect.
- I still think Auston is probably the #1 prospect this year, but the gap is not that big

Feel free to continue the mocking of my mock process!

[TheOnlyBilko]

Originally Posted by Split98

But if Puljujärvi is the guy we want, the suggestion is that we trade down to get him and an asset.

I'm just wondering why the team at #2 (Toronto in this case) would give up anything to draft Matthews at #1, when they know they can have him at #2 with us drafting Puljujärvi.

It's not the first time I've heard it suggested that a team does this. It came up a few times with the Oilers drafting #1 OA yet again.

Because it would GUARANTEE, say Toronto, would get Matthews. They really wouldn't know who we wanted.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

cause they wouldn't know

How does that conversation go though?

"Hey, want the 1st overall pick?"
"Absolutely"
"We will want your 2nd. What else are you going to throw in for it"
"Who are you drafting? We want Matthews as everyone else does. You offering the pick at all implies that you aren't taking Matthews"
"Yes we are! We want him! But... what will you give us for him though really?"
"Is it Puljujärvi you're taking then?"
"No! Matthews! He's so great!"
"So Puljujärvi then?"
[Long Pause]
"Bozak and your 2nd?"

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Basically in this case the Flames would have to convince the Leafs that there is at least one other team interested in Matthews and if the Leafs really want him they need to make a trade to move up.

Personally I think if the Flames really want the big Finn, just take him at #1.

So trying a little skeevy dealing?

A) If the GM doesn't see through your plan, they're not shrewd enough to be a GM
B) There has to be some mutual trust between GMs for a lot of these deals to work. I'd imagine harming that trust comes with consequences.

I agree though. If they go for Puljujärvi, it's just taking him at #1 (all assuming this theoretical story ever comes true).

[polak]

You're not lying though. Every team is interested in the 1st OA so you could easily trade down to 3 and then Toronto misses out.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Because if Matthews is the BPA and you're drafting at #1 you WILL take him unless you trade down. So if TOR wants him then they'd have to give you an appealing enough package to move down a spot or two. Otherwise you're happy to walk up to the podium and say Matthews name.

Now if the Flames think Laine or Puljujarvi is the best player available or they like 2-3 of them equally then the price to move down can be lower. Maybe just a 2nd and a 4th or something.