Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2017, 09:42 AM   #41
tsquared1967
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
trade down to recoup the pick?
Brian Burke has called this draft the worst draft ever. He said that he told Brad Treviling that he doesn't care if Brad trade all the picks away.
tsquared1967 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tsquared1967 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2017, 09:50 AM   #42
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquared1967 View Post
Brian Burke has called this draft the worst draft ever. He said that he told Brad Treviling that he doesn't care if Brad trade all the picks away.
Brian Burke is pretty emo these days. He should get it over with and dye his hair black already.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 10:15 AM   #43
868904
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquared1967 View Post
Brian Burke has called this draft the worst draft ever. He said that he told Brad Treviling that he doesn't care if Brad trade all the picks away.
Well that pretty much confirms the Flames are trying to trade down and acquire more picks.
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
868904 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 11:38 AM   #44
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

If it's that bad of a draft over all and we keep the pick, I hope they just go for the hail mary and pick the player with the highest ceiling even if the player is small or has other risk factors.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 11:41 AM   #45
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 868904 View Post
Well that pretty much confirms the Flames are trying to trade down and acquire more picks.
No, the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. In fact in weak drafts it's often dangerous to trade down. Much better to trade down in strong drafts IMO
Flames Draft Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 12:08 PM   #46
killer_carlson
Franchise Player
 
killer_carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

I bet we trade the pick for 2 later picks.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
killer_carlson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 12:44 PM   #47
icecube
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: compton
Exp:
Default

I wouldn't want to trade down in a lousy draft. Keep the pick and get someone who will be a player in this league. Or trade it for someone who already is.
icecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to icecube For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2017, 12:50 PM   #48
killer_carlson
Franchise Player
 
killer_carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

I agree.

But this management group seems keen to keep the shelves full and trusts their scouts.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
killer_carlson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 01:33 PM   #49
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
I agree.

But this management group seems keen to keep the shelves full and trusts their scouts.
Agreed. But the shelves have never been fuller of promising NHLers and young prospects.

Also the scouts may tell management that they can get a better player at #16 then they can get with trading down.

Flames won't trade down due to a philosophical decision about needing depth. The decision will be based on which prospects they target this draft and where they see the tiers or drop-offs. Trading down makes sense in the following 3 scenarios

1. Flames target lets say 5 guys. They all get picked before 16 and none are available. This is a classic trade down scenario where you were hoping someone fell and no one did. If this happens then a trade down would likely occur.
2. Flames target lets say 7 guys who they think are fairly close. At 16 there are 5 of them left. They can trade down 3-4 spots and still grab a guy they are targeting. I think this happened the year we traded down and picked Chucko. I think they liked Zajac, Chucko, maybe Meszaros, etc. We did get extra picks and got Boyd and Prust with those picks but picked a 1st round bust. Of course we didn't know the league was moving to be faster and Chucko did have concussion issues.
3. Flames are targeting a player they don't think anyone else likes quite as much as they do. They gamble and think they can trade down and still get him a bit lower. This would be like the Jankowski year.

Outside of those 3 scenarios I don't think it would make any sense to trade down. I'd imagine they'll go over all such scenarios before the draft. There's no way for us to know whether any of those scenarios will happen.

I think its most likely we just stay at 16 because I think the chance that a player they have in their top 10-12 dropping to them is quite likely.

Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 06-04-2017 at 01:39 PM.
Flames Draft Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2017, 02:28 PM   #50
868904
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
No, the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. In fact in weak drafts it's often dangerous to trade down. Much better to trade down in strong drafts IMO
I'm not looking at it from any strategic angle. In simply looking at it from the perspective that Burke leaks things on purpose, when he says it's a bad draft, he's telling the other GMs that they should not ask a lot for draft picks when talking trade with the flames because the draft sucks and picks are worth less than previous years.
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
868904 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 02:32 PM   #51
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 868904 View Post
I'm not looking at it from any strategic angle. In simply looking at it from the perspective that Burke leaks things on purpose, when he says it's a bad draft, he's telling the other GMs that they should not ask a lot for draft picks when talking trade with the flames because the draft sucks and picks are worth less than previous years.
The fact it's a weaker draft is well known. What Burke said really has no bearing on us trading down or not. Trading down will be a group decision made by management and the scouts based on the value of the players available at #16 vs the value of the players available later.

Burke saying it's a weak draft does not imply we're actively looking to trade down
Flames Draft Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2017, 02:52 PM   #52
dammage79
Franchise Player
 
dammage79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
The fact it's a weaker draft is well known. What Burke said really has no bearing on us trading down or not. Trading down will be a group decision made by management and the scouts based on the value of the players available at #16 vs the value of the players available later.

Burke saying it's a weak draft does not imply we're actively looking to trade down
I think this is shaping up to be a similar draft for the Flames as the Jankowski draft. The tolvanens and Andersen's would be akin to the teravainens and girgensons. We all wanted one of them, we got Janko and Seiloff. Who knows, this year there really isn't a player set in stone for me. So maybe the Flames go bpa.
dammage79 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2017, 03:37 PM   #53
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

From what I gather about Treliving there is no way they have made up their mind going into the draft. They have to see who is there at 16 before anything goes into motion.

As FDW said, there is no set philosophy in this, who is there and make your call.
Bingo is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy