Flames 2013 Draft Discussion

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I am a BPA proponent, but I must admit that a goalie in the first round scares me. Especially a guy (Fucale)who seems to be ranked as high as borderline top ten or all the way down to the bottom of the first and who happens to play on a dominant team.
Best case for me is that he slides to the end of the round and some other team views him as a franchise guy and would overpay (2 2nd rounders? 2nd and a 1st next year?). You never know. Otherwise I hope someone else picks Fucale early, leaving a forward or defense prospect and we don't have to worry about him.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To be Devil’s advocate – here’s why I would argue picking the best goalie late in the first is good value.

Basically the idea is to take advantage of trends with drafting. So if teams are shying away from Russians and Goalies – allowing them to drop below where they would have been drafted say a decade ago – you end up getting a better asset from that draft position.

The Flames need to take some risks. They are one of the most asset-weak organizations in the league if you look across the entire system.

They need to be bold.
If they think the Russian is a franchise player – take him at 6.
If they think Fucale is a franchise goalie – take him later in the 1st.

Being conservative isn’t going to help this organization.

Neither is being stupid. Any other draft prior to this one, it would have made more sense to take a big swing to see if Nichushkin pans out. If there's one position that the Flames have prospect strength (or at least perceived strength) it's the goalie position. I'm all for BPA, except for Russian players with dodgy KHL ties and goalies in the first round.

I'm not arguing to target players with grinder upside (Nystrom, Chucko, etc), but being bold, for me, doesn't mean rolling the dice in the most important draft for the Flames in 20 years (ever?) on Nichushkin and a freaking goalie. Goalies are like RBs in the NFL - except for the few stars (AP) you can get great value at any point in the draft ...or even after (Arian Foster).

[indes]

I get the high risk high reward but it's not like we have fall back prospects if they don't work out. How high is the risk we use two draft picks on nisk. And a goalie and they never pan out? Too much risk for what we need IMO

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is not a reason to take a goalie.

Any draft pick that continues to show promise / develops is an asset that can be traded.

The only issue with respect to drafting goalies in the first round is: are they more likely / as likely / or less likely to become an NHLer than non-goalie first rounders are?

I don't have any stats for that, but my guess is that they are less likely.

Actually, there is a second issue as well: how do goalies compare with respect to expected games played by the age of 27? Goalies typically take longer to develop. That being the case, there are less games available before UFA age.

As a result, goalies are a less efficient pick, and that is a strike against taking them in the first round (there are always individual exceptions of course)

Not saying take him to trade him. Saying that if you believe he projects to be a franchise goalie then take him and see what happens. If he beats out Ortio, Brossoit, and Gilles then we potentially have assets to move. I think the Flames are in a position with three picks that they can make this move if they think he is the real deal.

Going through a rebuild this is when you want to try and develop a goalie. If we flash forward three years and still have not found a goaltender we are in big trouble. I think this is partially the reason we have so many keepers, just throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here - considering the the Flames will not be compliance buying out any players, nor will be worried about spending too much money the next season or two, might the Flames want to trade a trade such as this:

To Calgary:
Player that other team wants to buy out, but can't due to wanting to buy out other players.
2nd Round Pick

To Other team:
Garbage prospect that Calgary has no plans for

I'd love to see it happen.

What I find interesting about this is that the NHL is creating ways to put a dollar value on all tradable assets, including draft picks. It is going to start begging the question "How much is a first round pick worth?" and "How much is a second round pick worth?".

If a team wants to send Calgary a player to be bought out because we are not going to use the compliance buyout, how are the owners and GMs going to value that transaction?

To Calgary:
Player that other team wants to buy out, but can't due to wanting to buy out other players.
Draft Pick(s)


To Other team:
Conditional 7th round pick that goes to the other team if the Flames do NOT buy out the player.

Obviously the owners are going to want to get the most for their dollars. If they are going to spend $6M buying out a player for another team I do not think a 2nd round pick is going to cover it.

Do you think that GMs are going to be given dollar values for draft picks?

1st round = $2M
2nd round = $1M
3rd round = $500k
etc.

So that way when a GM is asked to eat $6M in salary or buyout he will reply saying "okay, but it'll cost you three 1st rounders".

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Wolven

What I find interesting about this is that the NHL is creating ways to put a dollar value on all tradable assets, including draft picks. It is going to start begging the question "How much is a first round pick worth?" and "How much is a second round pick worth?".

If a team wants to send Calgary a player to be bought out because we are not going to use the compliance buyout, how are the owners and GMs going to value that transaction?

To Calgary:
Player that other team wants to buy out, but can't due to wanting to buy out other players.
Draft Pick(s)


To Other team:
Conditional 7th round pick that goes to the other team if the Flames do NOT buy out the player.

Obviously the owners are going to want to get the most for their dollars. If they are going to spend $6M buying out a player for another team I do not think a 2nd round pick is going to cover it.

Do you think that GMs are going to be given dollar values for draft picks?

1st round = $2M
2nd round = $1M
3rd round = $500k
etc.

So that way when a GM is asked to eat $6M in salary or buyout he will reply saying "okay, but it'll cost you three 1st rounders".

The problem is that the teams that will go the buy out route, have rich owners that would rather write the cheque than lose a good asset like a 1st or 2nd.

I guess a team with an internal budget might think about it, but they will need those 1st round picks not just for a chance at a good player, but a chance to have a good player on a ELC.


It sort of seemed like Kotalik and a 2nd was traded for $3 million cap space. So that might be where to start.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To be Devil’s advocate – here’s why I would argue picking the best goalie late in the first is good value.

Basically the idea is to take advantage of trends with drafting. So if teams are shying away from Russians and Goalies – allowing them to drop below where they would have been drafted say a decade ago – you end up getting a better asset from that draft position.

The Flames need to take some risks. They are one of the most asset-weak organizations in the league if you look across the entire system.

They need to be bold.
If they think the Russian is a franchise player – take him at 6.
If they think Fucale is a franchise goalie – take him later in the 1st.

Being conservative isn’t going to help this organization.

Even with the KHL deal, typical Russion player hassles, and the fact is that his preference is to play in the East? I simply don't believe the Flames are in a situation to be taking unnecessary risks. Being conservative may not hit a home run but I'll take a double and a tripple over striking out a couple of times. Chances are any one of the consensus top 6 will have a productive NHL career, no need to complicate things by taking the high risk/reward player of the lot. The teams that can afford to take the risks are the ones that have already built up the talent base. Once the Flames have a sufficient foundation by all means they can shoot for the fences and take the risks but until then they should really be looking at just climing out of the hole and that will only happen through sensible drafting.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Robbob

But if you think Fucale can be a number one goalie and it pans out then it lets you get an asset for the following tenders if any pan out as NHL quality goaltenders.:

Brossoit: 5th round
Gilles: 3rd
Ortio: 6th

The draft status of the goalie doesn't matter. You threw out five names of goalies that got good returns and of those five just two were first round picks... I'd rather be the guy getting a good return on a 3rd round or 7th round or undrafted goaltender and still have my first round pick then the guy who just got a good return on his 1st round pick.

I just think it's easier to find quality goaltenders outside the first round then it is to find quality skaters outside of same... so why not draft your goalies later and skaters earlier. Strikes me as better odds of hitting paydirt that way.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To be Devil’s advocate – here’s why I would argue picking the best goalie late in the first is good value.

Basically the idea is to take advantage of trends with drafting. So if teams are shying away from Russians and Goalies – allowing them to drop below where they would have been drafted say a decade ago – you end up getting a better asset from that draft position.

The Flames need to take some risks. They are one of the most asset-weak organizations in the league if you look across the entire system.

They need to be bold.
If they think the Russian is a franchise player – take him at 6.
If they think Fucale is a franchise goalie – take him later in the 1st.

Being conservative isn’t going to help this organization.

There are good reasons to avoid Russians and goalies in the first round. Few goalies taken in the first round turn out and especially zero goalies taken by the Flames in the first round turn out. Time to stop beating our heads against the wall especially when we have some fine goalie prospects that we are going to have trouble finding places for them to play as it is.

As for taking a gamble on a Russian, things have changed with them having the KHL. Ignoring this and thinking Russians will come over as a matter of fact is just putting your head in the sand. It looks to me that the KHL is going to start taking a stand on their young stars by offering them enough money to stay. They do have the advantage of not being constrained by entry level contracts and the Russians can put a lot of pressure on their young players.

To my way of looking at it, the Flames have been gambling and making poor draft choices for years and that's what has got us into this mess. It's time to be more conservative, not go for the home run, and build our prospect base.

The trend of avoiding Russians and goalies isn't some whimsical idea, it's done for good reasons. Thinking we're smarter than everybody else is a fools game.

[mac_82]

So with Barkov and Nurse not reporting for fitness testing, any chance they drop a bit in the draft?

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=670699

[nik-]

Barkov no, I think Nurse is a slider anyway.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by mac_82

So with Barkov and Nurse not reporting for fitness testing, any chance they drop a bit in the draft?

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=670699

Tod Button said the physical tests at the combine have very little impact on prospect rankings; the flames put way more stock in the interviews. Other teams may be different, of course

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

To my way of looking at it, the Flames have been gambling and making poor draft choices for years

I disagree. Apart from Jankowski I don't think they've made any particular "gambles" at least not more then any draft pick is a gamble. The essense of a gamble is that you're exchanging risk for reward... I don't think Sutter was doing that. I actually think Sutter was drafting what he thought was safely... avoiding smaller players, avoiding Russians, making niche longterm "replacement" picks... I don't know what you want to call Sutter's drafting strategy (other then bad) but whatever you want to call it he certainly wasn't trading risk for reward.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by mac_82

So with Barkov and Nurse not reporting for fitness testing, any chance they drop a bit in the draft?

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=670699

In my mind no. I don't think the tests are going to change anyones draft slot... the medical examinations might if it turns up something that might be a longterm ongoing problem.

I think the individual interviews are more important as are the medical examinations if they indicate anything worrisome for the longterm.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I disagree. Apart from Jankowski I don't think they've made any particular "gambles" at least not more then any draft pick is a gamble. The essense of a gamble is that you're exchanging risk for reward... I don't think Sutter was doing that. I actually think Sutter was drafting what he thought was safely... avoiding smaller players, avoiding Russians, making niche longterm "replacement" picks... I don't know what you want to call Sutter's drafting strategy (other then bad) but whatever you want to call it he certainly wasn't trading risk for reward.

One first rounder was taken from Junior A, two more were taken after injuries ruined their draft years so it was impossible to get a good read on their potential. One was a goalie. I'd say these were gambles.

2004 - Chucko - Junior A
2005 - Pelech - injured
2006 - Irving - goalie
2007 - Backlund - injured but this gamble may pay
2008 - Nemisz
2009 - Erixon - not even a Russian but still he wouldn't play for us
2010 - no pick
2011 - Baertschi
2012 - Jankowski - high school, no one thinks this choice isn't a gamble

For the last nine years only two picks haven't been gambles and we've got two NHL players out of that.

[Commandant]

Originally Posted by Parallex

In my mind no. I don't think the tests are going to change anyones draft slot... the medical examinations might if it turns up something that might be a longterm ongoing problem.

I think the individual interviews are more important as are the medical examinations if they indicate anything worrisome for the longterm.

I only put stock in it if someone totally bombs the tests, especially if that player's team was eliminated early from the playoffs.

If you went to the Memorial Cup, I'm fine with you not doing as well in these tests. Your body is probably beaten up and worn down, and you didn't get time to do the individual training that really can boost your results on the tests.

But if your team lost first round, and you bomb them, then its a problem. You have like 2 months to prepare for the combine. You should be training and should be ready to put on a show. If you fail them badly, it shows that you didn't work as hard as you should have, and I'm questioning your off season dedication to training.

Its not often this happens though.

The one thing I'm really interested in though, is player heights and weights, because I know that the ones released by their teams are often inaccurate.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

The problem is that the teams that will go the buy out route, have rich owners that would rather write the cheque than lose a good asset like a 1st or 2nd.

I guess a team with an internal budget might think about it, but they will need those 1st round picks not just for a chance at a good player, but a chance to have a good player on a ELC.


It sort of seemed like Kotalik and a 2nd was traded for $3 million cap space. So that might be where to start.

It isn't just the buyout where we will be able to see these exchanges of cash/cap space for assets. With the new trade system where a team can retain half of a player's salary cap we can see a number of opportunities for a team to say "We will trade you player X and keep half of his salary for draft picks".

Not only does it make an otherwise expensive player more reasonably priced but it also allows teams to negotiate the value of a draft pick.

I think it will be really interesting to watch as GMs start using the new salary trading features and how much dollar value they put into cap space and real dollars saved/spent.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

2004 - Chucko - Junior A
2005 - Pelech - injured
2006 - Irving - goalie
2007 - Backlund - injured but this gamble may pay
2008 - Nemisz
2009 - Erixon - not even a Russian but still he wouldn't play for us
2010 - no pick
2011 - Baertschi
2012 - Jankowski - high school, no one thinks this choice isn't a gamble

For the last nine years only two picks haven't been gambles and we've got two NHL players out of that.

That's a very loose definition of "gamble". Plus you're retroactively assigning the "gamble" label to things...

Chucko: Junior A yes... but he was ranked as a low first round pick by CSS so he certainly wasn't a reach.

Pelech: That he's being convieniently labelled a gamble now is funny because for years he was trumpeted or decried (depending on the commenter) because he was considered a safe low ceiling-high floor "safe" player.

Irving: When he was taken there wasn't an emerging opinion that goalies in the first round were gambles. Not one that I remember anyways.

Backlund: Injuries alone do not make someone a gamble... if the Flames get Barkov at 6 this year are they "gambling"? because he's injured.

Erixon: That he later refused to sign doesn't make him a gamble pick at the time.

Of all the guys that you listed (Don't know why you didn't bother to add Phaneaf to make it an even 10) the only one that strikes me as a significant gamble at the time is Jankowski. Every other player has either been thought of as a safe pick (that flopped anyways) or had a level of risk that was par the course for where they were taken.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

Barkov no, I think Nurse is a slider anyway.

If the Oilers don't take Nurse he may slide into the teens.

[Canada 02]

ISS Top 30 prospects for May

1. Jones
2. Mackinnon
3. Drouin
4. Nichushkin
5. Barkov
6. Nurse
7. Lindholm
8. Zadorov
9. Monahan
10. Horvat

http://www.isshockey.com/iss-top-30-released-for-may/

Nichushkin drops two spots, and Zadorov and Lindholm swap spots from April rankings