Flames win THW's 2016 mock draft

[Poe969]

I don't know what any team would be willing to give up to move from 2 or 3 to 1. It's not like it's that huge of a jump. I doubt you'd get a 2nd from one of those teams because it's almost a first rounder. What would you really get from the leafs if they had 2 or 3? For what it's worth, keep it and celebrate that the oilers didn't get a first overall for once.

[Ashasx]

I don't think we'll ever see a 1st overall pick traded again, short of a terrible draft year.

Managers and owners see it as an opportunity to reward fans. All the media attention. All the tire pumping.

It's good business.

It's no coincidence the Oilers have done it 67% of the time over the last 6 seasons.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Split98

How does that conversation go though?

"Hey, want the 1st overall pick?"
"Absolutely"
"We will want your 2nd. What else are you going to throw in for it"
"Who are you drafting? We want Matthews as everyone else does. You offering the pick at all implies that you aren't taking Matthews"
"Yes we are! We want him! But... what will you give us for him though really?"
"Is it Puljujärvi you're taking then?"
"No! Matthews! He's so great!"
"So Puljujärvi then?"
[Long Pause]
"Bozak and your 2nd?"

Think the conversation would be more like

"So, we're going to draft Matthews at 1st overall. But.... we wouldn't be too choked if we had to draft one of the other wingers. I hear you were gung ho in getting Matthews. Make me an offer to convince me to trade you my pick so you can get him..."

If Toronto refuses, you draft Matthews. No skin off Tre's back. I'm sure Phoenix would be willing to give up a crapload for him.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It could happen. The second or third team would really want Matthews above all others (and the first team could live with any of the top 3). If first team and third team are negotiating, second team should make an offer to make sure it gets the guy they want.

Not overly likely scenario, as they should all be happy with any of the top 3, but sometimes a management group falls in love with one guy.

[Moneyhands23]

Only way I see it working out from a Flames perspective is...

Arizona has a top 3 pick and really wants the home town "Star".

Flames get Arizona 1st and Duclair.

Getting one of the 2 Finns and Duclair would be tempting.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by polak

You're not lying though. Every team is interested in the 1st OA.

No, but the lying would be that you're taking Matthews at #1.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Split98

No, but the lying would be that you're taking Matthews at #1.

That part isn't a lie unless the Flames actually have Laine or Puljujarvi rated #1.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That part isn't a lie unless the Flames actually have Laine or Puljujarvi rated #1.

Right, that's what I'm saying they do. Like the article that started this whole topic.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

How does that conversation go though?

"Hey, want the 1st overall pick?"
"Absolutely"
"We will want your 2nd. What else are you going to throw in for it"
"Who are you drafting? We want Matthews as everyone else does. You offering the pick at all implies that you aren't taking Matthews"
"Yes we are! We want him! But... what will you give us for him though really?"
"Is it Puljujärvi you're taking then?"
"No! Matthews! He's so great!"
"So Puljujärvi then?"
[Long Pause]
"Bozak and your 2nd?"

Well it obviously wouldn't go like that, and in case it wasn't already obvious, these transactions take more than a 3 minute phone call.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Split98

Right, that's what I'm saying they do. Like the article that started this whole topic.

Not quite, the article states that Matthews is the "consensus" 1st overall but that we stray from that because we already have two frachise centres.

IMO if the Flames have Matthews as the #1 then we're happy to take him #1 even with Bennett and Monahan in the fold. That said we're obviously one of the few teams set enough at centre that we could entertain trading down to select one of the wingers if the Flames scouts don't see any dropoff from Matthews to the wingers.

I didn't take from the article that the Flames had Puljujarvi ahead of Matthews although having Laine/Puljujarvi ahead of Matthews would present an interesting scenario.

I'm with Craig Button that if two players are close you take the centre. I tend to think Matthews would top our list.

Will Puljujarvi/Laine vs Matthews start to resemble the Taylor vs Tyler debate? I guess we'll see

[dammage79]

Call me crazy but I'd take Puljujarvi over Matthews. Both are fantastic. I'd even trade down for Laine at 3. While MAtthews is an amazing #1 guy. I feel the Flames would find even greater success having one of the wonder Finns.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Here's an article The Hockey Writers did on the age gap in drafts.
http://thehockeywriters.com/late-bir...the-nhl-draft/

At first glance, the pick didn’t look so bad. Hamill was coming off of a fantastic season with the WHL’s Evertt Silvertips, where he scored 93 points in 67 games.

The very next pick, 9th overall, went to the San Jose Sharks, who took forward Logan Couture of the OHL’s Ottawa 67’s. Couture was also coming off of a solid junior season, with 78 points in 54 games.

Considering the two prospects came from similar leagues and scored at a similar pace, it would have been safe to assume that they would both have developed into similar players at the NHL level.

The Ravages Of Age
While there are a large, varied list of reasons why a prospect’s development never pans out, many of which that could probably be applied to Hamill specifically, I’m going to illustrate one key difference between the two draft picks that benefited the Sharks but hindered the Bruins: age.

As per NHL draft rules, players that turn 18 years of age by September 15th of that year are eligible for the draft. The flipside of that coin, however, is that players whose birthdays fall after the 15th are ineligible, and have to enter the draft the following year.

Hamill and Couture illustrate this key part of the draft rules. Both players were eligible for that year’s draft, but Hamill (born on September 23rd, 1988) was older than Couture (born in 1989). If Hamill was a little more than a week older he would have been part of the 2006 draft alongside other players born in 1988.

Why is this important? Hamill’s awesome draft-eligible junior year doesn’t look as impressive considering it was his third year in juniors, while Couture’s draft year was only his second. Naturally, a prospect in his third year of juniors is going to be further along in his development, and have an edge over, players in their second years.

Hamill looks less impressive when you look at his 2005-2006 junior season, which would have been his draft season if he was born a little earlier: 59 points in 53 games. Now, on their own those aren’t bad numbers. But is that level of production good enough for a player to get selected 8th overall? Probably not.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Interesting. But last year scouts thought Matthews was around the same talent level as Eichel and that he would've gone 2nd or 3rd last year.

And now Matthews is doing well in a pro league in Europe which very few draft eligible guys do. Think I remember hearing an interview where somebody said he's the best player in the entire Swiss league. Not sure it's a huge knock on Matthews in particular.

Their point about comparing guys in junior who are in their 3rd years vs 2nd years is very interesting and relevant though.

[AC]

I think the wildcard here is if the Flames would potentially consider keeping Bennett as a winger and thus Matthews makes a lot of sense.

Gaudreau/Monahan duo along with Bennett/Matthews. Or vice-versa.

Otherwise if Bennett at centre is the long term plan, then Puljujarvi or Laine would be mighty tempting. 6'3" and 6'4" powerforward wingers with elite offensive drive and skill? My god.

[Caged Great]

I don't think the Flames could go wrong with any of Laine, Matthews or Puljujarvi. Personally, my preference in terms of organizational need is

Laine
Pool party
Matthews

I think the thing that the Flames lack the most is a sniper. None of Bennett, Gaudreau or Monahan is an Iginla type sniper. Laine looks like he could fill that role on the team.

If Calgary walked away with any of them, that'd be awesome.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

All this talk of the big 3 and rightfully so but I'd be pretty ecstatic to land Tkachuk if we were drafting 4th or lower. Pretty happy if we land Chychrun as well.

Top 3 pick would be amazing, but top 5 still pretty great.

[flamesforcup]

imagine the all american duo with matthews and gaudreu tearing it up than seeing the good ol canadian boy duo of bennet and monohan come out after them

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Top 3 pick would be amazing, but top 5 still pretty great.

Just like with last season's top 7 ending at Provorov, I wouldn't be terribly upset with any of this year's top 9. Adding any of the 9 would be a huge shot in the arm as they all look like top 6 forwards and top 3 D-men.

It all depends on how the last 2 1/2 months go.

[AC]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

imagine the all american duo with matthews and gaudreu tearing it up than seeing the good ol canadian boy duo of bennet and monohan come out after them

You misspelled 3 of those 4 names.

[fire_starter]

Dumb question but how do you pronounce Puljujarvi?

And I agree with Polak, he was a stud at the juniors. I want him on our team.