[News] With the #22 overall pick the Flames select LW/RW Emile Poirier

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

The Jets reached when they took Morrissey and that was a savvy pick. The BJ's who had been the laughing stock for over a decade until last season passed on Shinkaruk TWICE and also reached for Dano, yet no criticism for those picks. Oh right, they have a shiny new GM that everyone likes to praise although he hasn't proven anything... so they obviously can't criticize him.

The Leafs were garbage for 20 years and they never took the kind of abuse from TSN that Calgary has the last few years. It's okay if you don't agree with us, but you have to understand that we can just as easily call you delusional as you can call us paranoid.

The Leafs get killed by the local media and mocked by the national media regularly. Based on results, the Flames are handled with kid gloves.

I think in a previous post I alluded to CBJs new "shiny" GM.

I'm simply making note of our reputation in the regular lay media, which is sadly quite justified. Nowhere did I state I agreed with them on this draft, I simply stated that their response is not unreasonable and expected in light of recent events. The Flames are a laughingstock. It sucks but it's true. This is how a laughingstock team is handled by the media. Until we improve, we should get used to it. When you spend years talking about playoff guarantees, intellectual honesty and comparing yourself to the oilers (while acting just like them), you open yourself up for ridicule. Personally, I liked the draft expect for our 3rd round pick, which I loathe, however, I can definitely see why we get the response in the media that we do.

[drPepper1]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Dream scenario

Monahan looks good in the NHL.
Klimchuk-Jankowski-Poirier line dominates in the wjhc

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/Tea...er-Camp/Roster

Monahan and Poirier got the summer camp invites. Hopefully Klimchuk/Janko can out play Horvat/Shinkaruk/Gaunce to make the team.

[sun]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The only board that matters is the board after the draft, the board that states exactly where each player was drafted. Every "board" previous are just opinions, sometimes by mad men like Ray Ferarro who for some reason is at the TSN draft panel but has clearly only seen a handful of players once or twice.

Here is the 2013 draft board.

Huh, I didn't realize the habs picked Fucale with our second. Kinda interesting.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The draft really needs a lot less Pierre McGuire and a whole lot more Peter Loubardias.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The draft really needs a lot less Pierre McGuire and a whole lot more Peter Loubardias.

Well Loubardias wanted the Flames to take Horvat at 6 so it just goes to show how opinions vary. Like I even said at the time I have nothing against Poirier but I feel that you have to use a value system with draft picks and if your list has a guy that is consensus 2nd round pick you should investigate trading down. For example the Flames could have used the 22 pick to get two 2nd round picks or a later 1st round pick and 2nd round pick, etc and still nab Poirier and Klimchuk while gaining say another 2nd round pick to get a guy like Petan as well. They did as much last year in trading down to pick Jankowski and recouping a 2nd round pick so I'm not sure why last year it wasn't a problem to take the risk and this year not. Maybe they really, really thought the Habs may take Poirier at 25 and if that's the case then I guess they did what they felt necessary. Heck maybe there were no trades to be made as with the internet and all these draft sites everything is so under the microscope and overanalyzed.

Overall Kent Wilson sums up my feelings of the Flames draft well which is that it was a good day but they didn't really get great value on the Bouwmeester/Iginla returns in using those picks on consensus 2nd round players. Time will tell of course but this organization isn't rich in positive draft history so it's hard to believe this July will be different as least on the surface when it seemed like there were some missed opportunities;

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/7/1/flam...draft-thoughts

- Overall, Calgary beefed up their collection of offensive prospects via the first round, which is good, but it doesn't look like they got much value beyond that this weekend, aside from maybe the Roy gamble. What's additionally surprising about the Kanzig and Poirier picks is that the team didn't attempt to trade down and beef up their number of selections in return. It's a good bet either guy could have been had a little later on givn their general standing amongst scouts (especially Kanzig), so it's odd the team wasn't able to move down a tad and one or two more 3rd/4th/5th rounders. Oh well.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

...
I'm simply making note of our reputation in the regular lay media, which is sadly quite justified. Nowhere did I state I agreed with them on this draft, I simply stated that their response is not unreasonable and expected in light of recent events. The Flames are a laughingstock. It sucks but it's true. This is how a laughingstock team is handled by the media. Until we improve, we should get used to it. When you spend years talking about playoff guarantees, intellectual honesty and comparing yourself to the oilers (while acting just like them), you open yourself up for ridicule. Personally, I liked the draft expect for our 3rd round pick, which I loathe, however, I can definitely see why we get the response in the media that we do.

Here's where I see the difference: the reaction may be expected, but it is definitely not unreasonable. The Flames are being treated differently, for whatever reason, than other teams. Passing on the same player is being treated differently. Expected? Maybe. Reasonable? No way.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Overall Kent Wilson sums up my feelings of the Flames draft well which is that it was okay but they didn't really get good value on the day. Time will tell of course but there some concerns;

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/7/1/flam...draft-thoughts

What a bizarre and borderline stupid article.

What does this, have to do with anything?

Poirier, on the other hand, is much more flash-in-the-pan relative to Shinkaruk. The December, 1994 birthday winger has only played two seasons in the QMJHL so far (one fewer than you would expect of a soon-to-be 19 year old) and was only a 15-goal, 40-point player as a rookie in 2011-12.

All that means is that Poirier is a late bloomer compared to other players in his draft class.

This guy is just finding things to yammer on about.

Amateurish writing on a website that looks like it's stuck in 1999. Is Geocities hosting that site?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by blankall

Stats last year are pretty comparable.

Shinkaruk:
37 goals 86 points

Poirier:
32 goals 70 points

Shinkaruk played in the WHL with the Tigers who had 243 goals for. Poirier played in the QMJHL for Gatineau who had 220. Poirier was 1st in scoring on his team, with the next highest player having 54 points. Shinkaruk was second in scoring on his team and played on a team with a guy who had 91 points and another that had 75.

Those look like pretty comparable numbers. And the bigger question is how will those numbers translate into the NHL. Poirier is the bigger grittier player. Not taking the hometown guy is dissapointing. But saying they are in different statistical categories is hyperbole.

my favorite post draft take. thanks

[expo2428]

Honestly my first impression of reading that article was the writer was looking to show off some very research he might of done that really meant nothing. Now Im not saying hes a bad writer in any way so please don't take it that way, I just thought this article screamed "Look at the useless information I just researched" thats all.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Huh... Red line report almost exactly managed to predict the Flames picks

they had Monohan at 6, Poirier at 21, Klimchuk at 27

http://eyeonthesens.com/2013/06/08/r...l-draft-guide/

That is astounding. Todd Button must worship Kyle Woodlief from Red Line Report.

Woodlief's NHL mock draft:

25. Montreal — Emile Poirier. Hear that? It's the sound of fervent praying as the Habs try to subconsciously will the rest of the league into staying away from this hometown Montreal stud. If they land him at No. 25, mark our words — it will be the biggest steal of the draft.

Last year Woodlief's mock draft had the Sens pick Jankowski at #15. Feaster got him at #21 by trading #14 for #21 (Jankowski) and #42 (Sieloff):

15. Ottawa — Mark Jankowski.

”The Murrays are bold enough to make this pick, aren’t they? The last time they were sitting at #15 they took a gamble on a small but super-skilled kid named Karlsson. Ring a bell? Has the feel of a Tim Murray shoot-for-the-homerun upside type of pick.“

My first reaction (like many who listened to TSN comments and rankings) was to assume that Calgary should've traded down to pick Poirier later on, or else pick Poirier at #28. It now seems clear to me there was a significant risk that Montreal takes him at #25 or even trades up to get him at #23.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well Loubardias wanted the Flames to take Horvat at 6 so it just goes to show how opinions vary. Like I even said at the time I have nothing against Poirier but I feel that you have to use a value system with draft picks and if your list has a guy that is consensus 2nd round pick you should investigate trading down. For example the Flames could have used the 22 pick to get two 2nd round picks or a later 1st round pick and 2nd round pick, etc and still nab Poirier and Klimchuk while gaining say another 2nd round pick to get a guy like Petan as well. They did as much last year in trading down to pick Jankowski and recouping a 2nd round pick so I'm not sure why last year it wasn't a problem to take the risk and this year not. Maybe they really, really thought the Habs may take Poirier at 25 and if that's the case then I guess they did what they felt necessary. Heck maybe there were no trades to be made as with the internet and all these draft sites everything is so under the microscope and overanalyzed.

Overall Kent Wilson sums up my feelings of the Flames draft well which is that it was a good day but they didn't really get great value on the Bouwmeester/Iginla returns in using those picks on consensus 2nd round players. Time will tell of course but this organization isn't rich in positive draft history so it's hard to believe this July will be different as least on the surface when it seemed like there were some missed opportunities;

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/7/1/flam...draft-thoughts

All I meant was that Peter spends a LOT of time watching junior level hockey (and even lower), so when he speaks, it is of first-hand knowledge. Pierre does not - just remembers stats and names, so when gets all butt-hurt when someone passes on his favorite prospect or who he says is an excellent fit, it is just worthless BS coming out of his mouth IMO. Peter would put way more legitimate insight into that panel on draft day.

As for not trading down at 22 - I think you just answered your own question there. Why did the Flames do it with Jankowski last year, but not with Poirier this year? Obviously because they were pretty sure where those guys would get picked based on intel. Yes, how you manage the draft can really add value to the organization by optimizing when you trade up, when you trade down, and when you pick your guys. Flames have been trading down for years. This year, they tried to trade up and couldn't. Was there really an opportunity to trade down without giving up the guy they wanted? Well, is Poirier > than Petan and another 2nd rounder (based on Petan being rumored being the last of the 4 invited to the Flames combine)? That is the real question.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I was hoping to draft one of the blue-chip defencemen at 22 - but most of the ones I was hoping for were gone so quickly. I was really hoping for Morrissey. Was happy the Flames just went and got forwards. I respect Kent Wilson - I think the guy has a pretty good hockey brain - but with all do respect, we will just all have to wait to see how they all develop. I am really high on most of the picks - if not initially, after doing some more research and hearing the "Why's" as to why they picked that certain prospect. I don't find a fault with any of their picks actually. However, I doubt that Kent has had time to really analyze for himself (much less viewed the prospects himself) to really provide a solid opinion at this point. I am sure he will in the future though, but if he is basing his opinion through 'consensus' and 'value', then the basis is on very weak ground.

I just think too many people are fixated on the 'consensus list' myth, and as soon as you deviate from it you are going 'off the board'. The 'board' and the 'consensus' is 100% based on what the Flames scouts hammer out amongst each other after they spend loads of time viewing prospects and analyzing their work. Come draft day, that is when 30 teams follow their own boards, and their own consensus. What fans term consensus is the external lists like ISS, McKeens, Pronman, Hockey News, etc.. The most legitimate list you can find is McKenzie's list - and he would often be right on who was about to be selected. However, his lists is from 10 scouts? Something like that? The next 20 can really alter that 'consensus'.

Why did the Flames pass on Hunter, and take Emile? Because after all the viewings, analysis, interviews - THEIR consensus was that Emile was the better prospect. It is as simple as that. Vancouver disagrees. Vancouver also has a pretty lousy track record in their drafting for a while. Also, FWIW, Detroit isn't a good drafting team OUTSIDE of Europe. NA drafted prospects are underwhelming, but their European scouting is top-notch. All their late-round gems that they get applauded for are because of the few really good European scouts. Them passing on Hunter doesn't make me feel 'better' - but the whole train of teams who also did do, so the 'consensus' was that Hunter has some real issues to his game - maybe character issues as rumored, or him being a perimeter player who is small, or whatever else. Fact is, he dropped according to the lists of NHL teams who spend millions combined - and it is their opinion that really matters. Put it that way, was Shinkaruk a real 'steal' (and keep in mind that there are teams with multiple selections who passed on him), or was he over-valued by external scouting services who are not really impacted by drafting a potential bust?

When you think of it that way, maybe Shinkaruk was the 'consensus pick' - the consensus pick for busting. Was Vancouver lucky? Were they 'smart' for picking him there? Perhaps they were the 'losers' in this draft for giving up Schneider to move up from 24 to 9, if that is all that ends up on the Canucks one day.

There are different ways to think about the draft and each selection. At the end of the day, a team must make its' picks, and what ISS, NHL Central Scouting, or any other organization that likes to make a draft ranking is basically meaningless EXCEPT to the fans and the media who are both impatient and want to see 'winners' and 'losers'. What matters is a team doing their own scouting, managing their own drafts for best value, and injecting their team with talent for the future.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by expo2428

Honestly my first impression of reading that article was the writer was looking to show off some very research he might of done that really meant nothing. Now Im not saying hes a bad writer in any way so please don't take it that way, I just thought this article screamed "Look at the useless information I just researched" thats all.

I actually like Kent's articles. I like how he uses advanced stats. However, it doesn't seem he was using any advanced stats really. Just seems like someone doing their scouting with points only, and looking to see who was on the board. He also didn't include the fact that Kanzig isn't a 'goon' as we all originally thought as well - he is an intelligent player, a leader, and someone who apparently vastly improved his defence and plays against the top lines every night.

As for Monahan having more points on the PP - while true in some cases (like Shremp), using this 'blind' data without doing in-depth analysis is just wrong (imo). Monahan is BY FAR the best player on his team, and he has little else to play with. Monahan had one of the highest QoC apparently - meaning teams were relentless in sending out their best against him, and he would be an 'easier target' as there wasn't anyone else to make room for him.

I would bet that Shremp's case was not the same (without even looking - which is also wrong). I think you can't pick and choose stats as you wish - you have to look at the over-all analysis, and use it in conjunction with scouting. Usually Kent is bang-on (imo) with his analysis in the NHL.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The draft really needs a lot less Pierre McGuire and a whole lot more Peter Loubardias.

"Has played on bad team in Ottawa, knows what it's like to play on a bad team"
-When we drafted Monahan.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Monahan's line-mate quality went down as well - he still progressed

That's an understatement. He pretty much had no linemates. At least Shinkaruk still had a couple other 70+ point forwards on his team. #2 in Ottawa scoring was defenseman Cody Ceci who was traded after just 42 games.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Why did the Flames pass on Hunter, and take Emile? Because after all the viewings, analysis, interviews - THEIR consensus was that Emile was the better prospect. It is as simple as that. Vancouver disagrees.

A good posting, but I'd just like to comment on this bit;

We don't even know that Vancouver disagrees. All we know is that Vancouver liked Shinkaruk better than anyone else available to them. For all we know the Canucks too might have gone for Poirier instead of Shinkaruk.

That's one of the reasons why I dislike the lengthy overanalysis of the draft after the fact: just too much guessing going on.

Same with trading down; you can never know what would have happened, because it didn't.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

What a bizarre and borderline stupid article.

What does this, have to do with anything?


All that means is that Poirier is a late bloomer compared to other players in his draft class.

This guy is just finding things to yammer on about.

Amateurish writing on a website that looks like it's stuck in 1999. Is Geocities hosting that site?

The "I don't agree with it so it's garbage" attitude is a little childish don't you think?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The only board that matters is the board after the draft, the board that states exactly where each player was drafted. Every "board" previous are just opinions, sometimes by mad men like Ray Ferarro who for some reason is at the TSN draft panel but has clearly only seen a handful of players once or twice.

Here is the 2013 draft board.

And based on history, that board is going to be full of busts in the first round. Why is it above criticism? Drafting 18 year olds is tough, but given the success rate of NHL first round picks it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't disagree with a certain pick.

These types of posts are so useless because they basically undermine the point of this forum - discussion. Don't like the way a player is playing? Doesn't matter - the only opinion that matters is what the coach & GM think so shut up.

[XxBIGDOGxX1817]

The people that are so distraught over this pick crack me up. "I can't believe we passed on Shinkaruk"... ya really? have you ever seen him play?... They heard that he was dropping and they assumed value with the pick, not always the case guys.

Every new flames GM that comes through the flames door gets a clean slate from me and in regards to the DRAFT Feaster has only impressed me thus far. I have no reason to question this years draft picks.

On a side note, none of the analysts seemed to have anything bad to say about Poirier. Mostly said that he really turned it on at the end of the season... Great! I'm a fan of players that turn it on at the end of the season.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The "I don't agree with it so it's garbage" attitude is a little childish don't you think?

Sure, that's not what was happening though.

The article just isn't that interesting. You (correctly) mentioned the other day how over scouting and too much information in players tends to bring out perceived faults in prospects where there isn't any. This article honestly reminded me of that.

Talking about things like small sample sizes is a symptom of that IMO. These are 17/18 year old kids, the sample sizes are always small. Poirier is no different in that regard.

Now making fun of his poorly designed website is childish, but I thought it was funny.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JayP

And based on history, that board is going to be full of busts in the first round. Why is it above criticism? Drafting 18 year olds is tough, but given the success rate of NHL first round picks it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't disagree with a certain pick.

These types of posts are so useless because they basically undermine the point of this forum - discussion. Don't like the way a player is playing? Doesn't matter - the only opinion that matters is what the coach & GM think so shut up.

Neither of your points make any sense since I wasn't suggesting any of the Flames picks are above criticizing nor was I suggesting we shouldn't debate them.

Try again, JayP.