Flames 2013 Draft Discussion

[Roof-Daddy]

Some of the proposals to move up from #6 that I read in here make me want to vomit.

When has a team EVER traded one of their top prospects in order to move up a couple spots in the first round of a draft?

Never, that's when.

Sorry, but the notion of trading Sven AND #6 for #4 or #3 or #2 or #1 is absolutely ######ed.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Sorry, but the notion of trading Sven AND #6 for #4 or #3 or #2 or #1 is absolutely ######ed.

I think it depends on how far you move up. #6 for #5 and a top prospect I can agree, even #4.

But Baertschi plus #6 for MacKinnon (#1 lets say)? That is an obvious trade that Calgary makes all day everyday. Baertschi is a good player but MacKinnon is elite.

[keenan87]

Mark Giordano for Oilers 7th Pick

Draft Nikushkin and Lindholm

Penguins 1st+Jackman for Tyler Myers (with that crazy contract and was scratched)

Giordano+Pens 1st+Jackman for Myers+Nichuskin

Draft a dman with the blues pick.

Now, that I like but will never happen

[sureLoss]

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg 13m On the Draft, Conroy says they're looking for players who can make a quick impact and not guys who are 4-5 years away. #Flames

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

I think it depends on how far you move up. #6 for #5 and a top prospect I can agree, even #4.

But Baertschi plus #6 for MacKinnon (#1 lets say)? That is an obvious trade that Calgary makes all day everyday. Baertschi is a good player but MacKinnon is elite.

Too much risk in moving a top prospect with our pick to move up. Daigle was considered an elite prospect at one time, just keeping all the hype in perspective. In essence, Monahan and Baertschi for McKinnon. Don't think it's a good deal, we need to fill out a team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Gaudreau/Sven + #6 for #3/4? Call me crazy, but I would do it.

That is ridiculous.

We are talking about PROSPECTS here. No one - including the scouts - knows how any of these players will turn out.

Yes, Barkov is rated more highly than Monahan/Lindholm and has a more complete tool set at this point.

But you have to understand the likelihood of these players becoming solid NHLers.

Statistically, Barkov is probably a 60/40 or, more likely, a 55/45 favourite to become the better player over Mon/holm (take your pick which one).

To trade Baertschi, or even Gaudreau in order to move up two spots for a marginally more likely prospect is flat out ludicrous.

Developing players is a numbers game - the more prospects you have, the more likely you are to develop some quality players. Yes, Barkov is more likely to become an impact player than Monahan is - MARGINALLY - but giving up another prospect for that is massive overpayment.

In simple terms:

Barkov > Monahan

Monahan + Gaudreau >> Barkov, and

Monahan + Baertschi >>> Barkov

And keep in mind, there is a very real chance that NONE of those players become impact NHLers (though I would rather have the two cracks at it)

Now, if we were talking about a player like MacKinnon, that would be different as there is a clear gap there between his potential and that of the others.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg 13m On the Draft, Conroy says they're looking for players who can make a quick impact and not guys who are 4-5 years away. #Flames

Feaster also said this at the STH event last night. They got their long-term project in the first round last year, he's not going to pick another project this year.

[Enoch Root]

Here's another way to look at it...

When was the last time that the players drafted in a given year developed in parallel to their draft position? (meaning #1 was the best player, then #2, etc)

The answer is NEVER.

Because it isn't an exact science.

You obviously would rather have the higher pick but trading Baertschi to move up two picks in a very deep draft is a very bad idea.

[MikaelBacklund]

This cycle of switching back and forth between team Monahan and team Lindholm is frustrating .....

[dammage79]

I'm not sold that going up to #4 requires more than the Pittsburgh pick. Especially if Nashville thinks they get a good one in Lindholm/Monahan added to another asset acquired in the first round. Ultimately up to Poile to decide which is better. Since the argument around here seems to be that Barkov is only marginally better than the other two centers. Mah, it doesn't really matter I guess, the Flames get better either way.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

I think it depends on how far you move up. #6 for #5 and a top prospect I can agree, even #4.

But Baertschi plus #6 for MacKinnon (#1 lets say)? That is an obvious trade that Calgary makes all day everyday. Baertschi is a good player but MacKinnon is elite.

Mackinnon is the only player in this draft you even think about making that trade for. At the end of the day I have a tough time making that deal.

The reality of the situation is that in the majority of draft years both Lindholm and Monahan are slam dunk top five picks. Especially Lindholm. You are getting a player who projects as a top line player either way in most scouts eyes.

If everyone involved in the deal tops out as they project it would essentially be like trading (impact wise)

John Tavares for Nicklas Backstrom or Eric Staal and Jordan Eberle

I don't make that trade.

[Ashasx]

I would be perfectly happy if we stayed at 6 and picked Lindholm or Monahan.

[H2SO4(aq)]

i like the idea of trying to trade for oilers 7th pick, cause i dont want them drafting anyone..

[Walter Reed]

Bob Stauffer had the head scout for Mckeen's 2013 draft guide on today and he rather surprisingly has Monahan pencilled in at 11th.

[Sylvanfan]

Personally, I would try to turn the two later firsts into 4 picks in the 27 to 60 range. Otherwise package them up to get as high as you can.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Personally, I would try to turn the two later firsts into 4 picks in the 27 to 60 range. Otherwise package them up to get as high as you can.

I would personally keep #6 and #22 and trade the Pittsburgh pick for two second rounders.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I would personally keep #6 and #22 and trade the Pittsburgh pick for two second rounders.

Montreal would be the best opportunity for that, as they have #34, #36, #55.

EDIT:

Actually, it's ridiculous how many teams have more than one 2nd round pick in this years draft.

Montreal -> #34 #36 #55
Winnipeg -> #43 #59 (Plus Hawks 2nd)
San Jose -> #49 #50 (Plus Pens 2nd)
Buffalo -> #38 #52
Edmonton -> #37 #56
Dallas -> #40 #54

That's 15 of this years 2nd round picks (50%) held by just SIX teams.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Montreal would be the best opportunity for that, as they have #34, #36, #55.

Yeah. San Jose has three seconds as well.
Hell, Edmonton and Dallas could also be a targets as they have two second round picks.

[sun]

Originally Posted by getbak

Feaster also said this at the STH event last night. They got their long-term project in the first round last year, he's not going to pick another project this year.

Probably rules out Nurse at 6 then?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Walter Reed

Bob Stauffer had the head scout for Mckeen's 2013 draft guide on today and he rather surprisingly has Monahan pencilled in at 11th.

Did he elaborate why or did he just say it for edmonton radio knowing the flames will probably take him.

I fail to see why all these "experts" are dropping a consensual top 3 pick one year ago anywhere from 4-7 spots because he played on a brutal team.

78 points in 58 games and lead his team by 38 points in scoring doesn't scream of a player regressing to me.