2016 NHL Draft

[Red Potato Standing By]

Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded

Yes. The only way you can get a player to waive a NMC is if the GM asks the player AND the player agrees to do that.

[DJones]

Kind of partial to Brown and Jost.

Wouldn't be mad if they gambled and traded down.

If we stick at #6, I just hope someone reaches for a defensemen

[Vinny01]

I am not a fan of trading down but if it happens I hope they use the assets to land both a stud goalie, top 6 forward and draft once in the second round (i.e. Trade our first for a lower pick and a 2nd then trade 3 of 4 of the 2nds for players that help next year)

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded

I was confused about this myself before. According to Cap Friendly:

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc_ntc

A No-Movement Clause (NMC) prohibits a team from moving a player, or assigning a player to the minor division without their consent (by trade, loan or waivers). This ensures the players’ presence on the team, unless they consent to moving. However, an NMC does not prevent a team from buying out or terminating a players contract. An NMC follows a player even if they waive the clause and are traded, but it does not protect a player from being bought out.

A No-Trade Clause (NTC) is less restrictive, and only places restrictions on player movement as a result of trades. A player with an NTC cannot be traded to another team unless the player provides consent. However, player consent is not required for placement on waivers or assignment to minors. An NTC does not follow a player if they waive a full NTC, or are traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC.

So yes, Clarkson still has his NMC. Often teams as a goodwill gesture will reinstate a player's NTC once acquiring a player with such a clause. I am betting that in at least some of those cases, it was part of the agreement for said player to agree to move to the new team. However, NTCs do in fact get lifted after a trade, but NMCs do not.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I was confused about this myself before. According to Cap Friendly:

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc_ntc



So yes, Clarkson still has his NMC. Often teams as a goodwill gesture will reinstate a player's NTC once acquiring a player with such a clause. I am betting that in at least some of those cases, it was part of the agreement for said player to agree to move to the new team. However, NTCs do in fact get lifted after a trade, but NMCs do not.

Thanks for this. Yikes! Just confirms to me why the Clarkson contract is WAY too risky to take on under any circumstance or at any cost/benefit (even if it's to get the 3rd overall draft pick).

[Krynn]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The thing is that you'd have to evaluate Trevor Kidd independently without considering Martin Brodeour as part of the equation.

Kidd actually was a starter for 3 ish years and was a key piece in a deal to get J.S. Giguere. So what was a player like that worth?

Had the Flames stayed put at 21, we don't know what would have happened. What we do know is that the Flames moved up to take Kidd, and was Kidd a good enough player that you could say was worth moving into the 11th spot in the draft to pick?

The likely answer in this case is no...but I think that's the sort of thing that analytics types would be looking to evaluate here.

At the time kidd was the best goalie of that draft and was considered a can't miss prospect. Marty was the 3rd best
No one really knows how a player will turn out .

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Krynn

At the time kidd was the best goalie of that draft and was considered a can't miss prospect. Marty was the 3rd best
No one really knows how a player will turn out .

I remember Potvin being the highest ranked goalie that draft by many "experts", but because he played on a very good team some felt his stats were exaggerated, Brodeur looked great by anyone who saw him but because he only played one year in the Q some felt he was unproven. Kidd turned out exactly what the scouting report in the hockeynews said. great spectacular save one minute, extreme softy the next.
This draft wasn't one of Fletcher's better moments, you know that when your best pick was Paul "Ficken" Kruse in the 4th round.

I remember being choked they didn't take a kid from High River who had a bunch of points for Lethbridge, Mark Graig

Yeah, He sucked too!

[Red Menace]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Someone remind me the last time the Flames made a pick between 20-30th overall that amounted to anything outside of Backlund? This is why you stay at 6th and take a player with higher odds of paying off.

The answer is 1985 and Joe Nieuwendyk at #27
The Flames have picked in spots #21 to #30 17 times since they moved to Calgary, and the large majority of those picks have been busts.
Niewuendyk, Backlund, Matteau are the only ones who really made it. (so far)
The rest of that list is pretty ugly:
Jason Muzzatti, Kent Manderville, Tim Erixon, Emile Poirier, Leland Irving, Matt Pelech, Greg Nemisz, Mark Jankowski, Morgan Klmichuk, Kris Chucko, Chris O'Sullivan, Dave Reierson, Nicolas Perrault, Mike Perovich

Your sentiment is bang on, don't trade down to the 20's for extra picks when you have a top 10 pick, use it...those opportunities don't come around too often (hopefully) and your chances of success are much much higher.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

The answer is 1985 and Joe Nieuwendyk at #27
The Flames have picked in spots #21 to #30 17 times since they moved to Calgary, and the large majority of those picks have been busts.
Niewuendyk, Backlund, Matteau are the only ones who really made it. (so far)
The rest of that list is pretty ugly:
Jason Muzzatti, Kent Manderville, Tim Erixon, Emile Poirier, Leland Irving, Matt Pelech, Greg Nemisz, Mark Jankowski, Morgan Klmichuk, Kris Chucko, Chris O'Sullivan, Dave Reierson, Nicolas Perrault, Mike Perovich

Your sentiment is bang on, don't trade down to the 20's for extra picks when you have a top 10 pick, use it...those opportunities don't come around too often (hopefully) and your chances of success are much much higher.

A little premature on a few of those names? Poirier, Jankowski and Klimchuk are still works in progress. Also, who gives a rip about players drafted 20+ years ago. Scouting and player development has changed so much in the past decade that it is almost a completely different game. For the Flames I think things changed with the departure of Sutter and the commitment to improving the scouting and player development departments by management. To me, the most important hire made was bringing in Michel Goulet, who has an incredible eye for talent. The Flames now have nine guys scouting the various amateur leagues, which is a massive improvement from years gone by.

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.

Good post, but I think you have a logic problem in the last part. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 24. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 121. That doesn't mean you should trade 6th for 24th.

The general quality of player picked from 4-10 will be higher than those picked from 24-30, like it is every year. Your best chance to get the best player is at 6, not at 24.

Hindsight fallacy, I believe is the issue.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by New Era

A little premature on a few of those names? Poirier, Jankowski and Klimchuk are still works in progress. Also, who gives a rip about players drafted 20+ years ago. Scouting and player development has changed so much in the past decade that it is almost a completely different game. For the Flames I think things changed with the departure of Sutter and the commitment to improving the scouting and player development departments by management. To me, the most important hire made was bringing in Michel Goulet, who has an incredible eye for talent. The Flames now have nine guys scouting the various amateur leagues, which is a massive improvement from years gone by.

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.

Darryl Sutter was GM that got management to start opening up the purse strings, and even invest in their own AHL team to better control the development of their prospects, as well as start (I believe) a developmental side of their hockey ops.

Michel Goulet is a pro scout, not an amateur scout. He goes to the draft every year, but he is there as an advisor when trade scenarios pop out involving established players. He has absolutely no say on the amateur side.

I do agree that the entire scouting of the draft - and the prospect draftees themselves - are a totally different animal than what it was back then. Still, I imagine the odds of 'hitting' and 'missing' inverse at some point in the first round. At the very least, I would still expect players in the 2nd half of the draft to have generally have less of an impact to their team than a player taken earlier in the draft, as well as requiring more time to even start his career.

I, too, would trust the scouts if they chose to draft down as the last 7 or 8 years of drafting has shown a continual improvement... but I would be disappointed if that happened. I would be all for dropping a couple of spots, but not into the middle - third of the 1st round.

[Poe969]

I think the one thing being left out of the "trade down" scenarios is what would be given in order to trade down. If a team offers a third rounder to go from 6 to 20 then you say no but if the avs offered Barrie + 10 for 6, then you say yes. **that was just an example
If the ducks offered Andersen to switch picks, then maybe you think about it.

If a team overpays then you should consider it but it would have to be a big over payment.

[CliffFletcher]

Trading down from 18th to 24th because you're pretty sure a guy you like will still be available make sense. At that stage of the draft there difference between prospects is a lot flatter, and comes down to how different teams see the players. Trading down from 6th to 12th, on the other hand, is a bad idea.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Good post, but I think you have a logic problem in the last part. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 24. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 121. That doesn't mean you should trade 6th for 24th.

The general quality of player picked from 4-10 will be higher than those picked from 24-30, like it is every year. Your best chance to get the best player is at 6, not at 24.

Hindsight fallacy, I believe is the issue.

I think you hav read that all wrong. I am saying that the if the scouts have come to the conclusion that the talent level of the players available between picks six and twenty are the same, and the best player on their list, the guy they think will be the best, is likely to be available later, they should trade down. Only they know this because they are the ones who have assessed the draft and determined the strength and then the order of the prospects. Everything in that process is predictive. I don't see where hindsight comes into play in that process?

[Erick Estrada]

Who's scouts have come to the conclusion that 6 - 20 are the same? Sure sounded from the Contoy interview that they have a short list of players they expect at the 6th spot and Burke said they didn't want to fall further than 7th in the draft lotter as they believe there is a critical drop off after 7 so it certainly sounds like the Flames don't plan on trading back.

I don't want the Flames to take a defenseman at 6 but if it came to that or trading out of the top ten I would take Juolevi at 6 100/100 times as there's a far greater chance he becomes a better player than any of the guys that go 15 or later. Far better chance.

[puckedoff]

Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft

Interviews only started yesterday, perhaps some news is out there regarding these but probably not much. Actual fitness testing doesn't start until Saturday.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft

It is mostly interviews right now. Medical and phyiscal testing along with interviews with the media are the last few days.

[cannon7]

Forget trading down, I trade our two second round picks for a late first and grab a guy like Gauthier.