Flames 2013 Draft Discussion - Page 283 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

_Q_ · 06-14-2013, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Jesus, not this again.

Yeah.... I really wish this thread can just be about Draft Discussion as the title states, rather than ranting about how horrible of a franchise Edmonton is or how shameful Nashville, Florida and Carolina are for tanking on purpose.

Let's start a new thread where people can rant about useless crap rather than polluting this one.

keenan87 · 06-14-2013, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I don't think anyone that cheers against their team deserves anything. I think it is sad and pathetic. But hey you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am

Okay. You are a much bigger fan than many of us

Want a cookie?

FlamesAddiction · 06-14-2013, 10:42 AM

I was happy every time they won down the stretch, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't mind the losses at that point as well.

It was almost liberating in a way.

saillias · 06-14-2013, 10:49 AM

There seems to be a common opinion that we should trade the 28th for some second rounders. I don't really see why when we have all the quantity we need in the first round. We're going to pick up plenty of high level talent.

Robbob · 06-14-2013, 10:57 AM

I am just thankful that it is a deep draft. If in a few years the flames look back and the picks were equivalent to the Oilers 6. Gagner, 15. Plante , 21. Nash (Edmonton actually traded up to 21 from 30 to grab Nash)then we are in a world of hurt. Although we definitely would be in the McDavid sweepstakes.

This draft is so important being a transitional period for the franchise.

Wolven · 06-14-2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Q_

My completely uninformed opinion says
1-3
4-10
11-25
26-40

Right. So just for fun I would say the following:

- Moving up from 6 is not worthwhile unless we can get into the top 3.
- Moving from 22 to 15 would not be a good move because you would be losing assets to acquire a player with the same level of talent as the player you would have gotten anyway.
- Moving from 28 to 20 (or anything better than 25) would be a good move (jumping up a tier) and that would be worthwhile as long as it isn't too expensive since you are only moving from Tier 4 to Tier 3.

_Q_ · 06-14-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolven

Right. So just for fun I would say the following:

- Moving up from 6 is not worthwhile unless we can get into the top 3.
- Moving from 22 to 15 would not be a good move because you would be losing assets to acquire a player with the same level of talent as the player you would have gotten anyway.
- Moving from 28 to 20 (or anything better than 25) would be a good move (jumping up a tier) and that would be worthwhile as long as it isn't too expensive since you are only moving from Tier 4 to Tier 3.

Honestly, yes. Again, this is all uninformed, but I don't think the difference between Barkov, Nichushkin, Lindhom, Nurse, Monahan, Ristolainen, etc. is all that big. So moving up to get Barkov might be a waste of time. The only wild card there is Nichushkin, who has top 3 talent from what I have read, but might have serious character issues.

After that, you have the likes of Horvat, Morin, Fucale, Shinkaruk, etc. who all seem fairly solid, but might not be ready to make the jump right away, or have some aspects of their game that need more developing.

sun · 06-14-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Flames were 3 points out of being 2nd worst. If this had been an 82 game season i have no doubt they would have been bottom 2.

So...

29. Flames
30. oilers

?

$ven27 · 06-14-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Oh they tanked.

Agree to disagree.

Ashasx · 06-14-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

Agree to disagree.

There is no question the Avs tanked. Why else would they keep Sacco so long?

$ven27 · 06-14-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There is no question the Avs tanked. Why else would they keep Sacco so long?

Rumors were that Eric LaCroix was very close to him and basically was the reason they hung onto him for so long.

Ashasx · 06-14-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

Rumors were that Eric LaCroix was very close to him and basically was the reason they hung onto him for so long.

So they suddenly decided to go separate ways the day after the regular season ended?

They tanked. They tanked hard.

$ven27 · 06-14-2013, 12:40 PM

Agree to disagree. ANYWAYS, I think this draft will be a win for Calgary no matter what. Either one of Monahan/Lindholm or Barkov is a win IMO.

Henry Fool · 06-14-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Q_

Honestly, yes. Again, this is all uninformed, but I don't think the difference between Barkov, Nichushkin, Lindhom, Nurse, Monahan, Ristolainen, etc. is all that big. So moving up to get Barkov might be a waste of time. The only wild card there is Nichushkin, who has top 3 talent from what I have read, but might have serious character issues.

After that, you have the likes of Horvat, Morin, Fucale, Shinkaruk, etc. who all seem fairly solid, but might not be ready to make the jump right away, or have some aspects of their game that need more developing.

Barkov is on a completely different tier than a guy like Ristolainen and definitely has top-3 talent.

Wolven · 06-14-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Q_

Honestly, yes. Again, this is all uninformed, but I don't think the difference between Barkov, Nichushkin, Lindhom, Nurse, Monahan, Ristolainen, etc. is all that big. So moving up to get Barkov might be a waste of time. The only wild card there is Nichushkin, who has top 3 talent from what I have read, but might have serious character issues.

After that, you have the likes of Horvat, Morin, Fucale, Shinkaruk, etc. who all seem fairly solid, but might not be ready to make the jump right away, or have some aspects of their game that need more developing.

Yeah, that is my take on it as well. I hadn't laid out the Tiers like that before so I hadn't really evaluated where I thought it would be worthwhile to trade up or not. I'm sure the Flames scouting staff have a similar distinction in tiers that they would use to determine what is a worthwhile trade and what is not.

I definitely do no believe it is worthwhile to trade "into the top 5". If we are going to trade up we either need to land at 2 or 3. Otherwise don't bother spending the assets.

Henry Fool · 06-14-2013, 01:29 PM

I really don't think Nichuskin is going to be picked in the top-6. Teams won't gamble for a 10% chance of a poor man's Malkin when there is so much talent available this year. What I'd like to know is how likely it is that Carolina picks Monahan and whether or not that would be additional motivation for the Flames to trade up if they can.

bubbsy · 06-14-2013, 01:43 PM

agreed. i think jones, mackinnon, droin, barkov are locks for the top4, and then it's uknown. i have a feeling the canes don't go wtih nichuskin either, leaving the flames to go with lindholm or a bit off the board from traditional mock drafts (ie. shinkaruk, nurse, etc).

Henry Fool · 06-14-2013, 01:45 PM

If Carolina doesn't want a center, would that mean that they'd possibly be more willing to trade down?

kyuss275 · 06-14-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

If Carolina doesn't want a center, would that mean that they'd possibly be more willing to trade down?

They might. Also they could take Lindholm who played RW this year. It would not be a bad fit. They get a good prospect with skill that can play RW or center.

Roof-Daddy · 06-14-2013, 01:50 PM

I think Carolina is nearly a sure bet to take Monahan, given their drafting history (Huge % of NA players) and the apparent reluctance/dislike for Rutherford in taking a D-man in the first round.

I would bet the Flames are left with the choice between Lindholm/Nichushkin/Nurse.

Hopefully they choose Lindholm in that scenario.