What is the most you would give up for 3rd OA?

[calgaryblood]

Edmonton scouts had Murray #1? So that means Kevin Lowe picked Yakupov?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Universally? That is definitely a false statement. Calgary had Galchenyuk rated #1. Edmonton had Murray #1. Toronto had Rielly #1. Yakupov was far from a consensus #1

lol what...the majority had him as the top forward and he was certainly top 3 on most if not all lists

Point being everyone expected him to be a can't miss high end player...in a re-draft he would likely go in the 2nd round

And TO is full of it...

TSN had him #1
Central Scouting #1
Hockey news #1

Consensus rankings using all lists from media had him #1

Its revisionist history to pretend he wasn't the consensus #1...everyone says something different after the fact

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Edmonton scouts had Murray #1? So that means Kevin Lowe picked Yakupov?

Here's an article on Mickey Mouse

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Here's an article on Mickey Mouse

That had more to do with their need for a dman...they certainly thought Yak was the best forward in the draft. And at the end of the day they picked him #1 so...

[JiriHrdina]

Consensus and universal are not the same.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Edmonton scouts had Murray #1? So that means Kevin Lowe picked Yakupov?

Surprised some of you hadn't heard that EDM scouts wanted Ryan Murray

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/o...yakupov-start/

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Universally? That is definitely a false statement. Calgary had Galchenyuk rated #1. Edmonton scouts had Murray #1. Toronto had Rielly #1. Yakupov wasnt a consensus #1 at all. Universal? That is demonstrably false. Yakupov wasn't even universally #1 for EDM scouts, 9 of them in favor of Murray and 1 for Yakupov and 1 who got pressured into voting for Yak.

you know whats funny? whilst searching for 2012 draft information on CP I found this lol...ah the internet is forever

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well he's still #2 on Button's list.

Outside of Yakupov being what looks like a consensus #1, there really doesn't seem to be much consensus after that. Seems like any of Dumba, Murray, Trouba, Rielly, or Reinhart could be the first defenseman taken. Really depends which teams have them ranked high.

It's a good idea to always expect a few surprises. Don't try and read too much into any of the rankings in particular. Try and look at as many rankings as possible and see the range of where players are slotted.

I would've loved a top 10-12 pick but there should be some interesting players left at 14.

[CroFlames]

Could you trade Bennett straight up for 2nd or 3rd OA? Intriguing.

[dino7c]

Just saying these guys are unknown as NHL commodities...good chance one of the top three doesn't live up to expectations...its not like Murray would have been a good first overall either. Gotta be careful when trading sure thing NHLers

[Bunk]

6th, 35th and Poirier.

[Samonadreau]

3rd OA, 35th another 2nd and a case of beer. Heck make it a flat.

[Tinordi]

If you're trading the 3rd overall this year you're trading a guy who's a better than 50% shot of being a top line player for your team over the next 6-10 seasons.

So how valuable do you think that is?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you're trading the 3rd overall this year you're trading a guy who's a better than 50% shot of being a top line player for your team over the next 6-10 seasons.

So how valuable do you think that is?

Maybe, but if you're only dropping 3 spots to 6th, that "better than 50% shot" of getting a top line player isn't reduced enough to get Backlund ++ as a return.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Could you trade Bennett straight up for 2nd or 3rd OA? Intriguing.

Not the slightest bit intriguing. Why trade a 20 year old centre who has shown he can play in the league and plays with a style Management covets for a winger that has never played a NHL game?

[heep223]

But it could even be a Bennett!

[Mattman]

I don't know why people are so against trading Backlund and against trading Jankowski.

Sure both of them have upside and Backs has proven to be a quality player, and Jankowski still has yet to play a game for the Flames... but both are penciled in BEHIND Monahan and Bennett. So you would either be putting the rookie on the 4th line or waste Backlund's talent to limited 4th line ice time.

I can see the case for keeping both players but in this case where you have two centers (Monahan and Bennett) who look like they will be the better players than any other centers on your team (Backlund and Jankowski) then you don't create a log jam just to keep them. If trading one of them meant getting a badly needed RW the hell yes let's go for it.

It also looks like Mony, Johnny, Bennett, Hamilton and Brodie are the CP certified "untouchables". I don't see Backlund and Jankowski close to the untouchable area yet.

For the record I'm not for trading Mark Jankowski specifically, I'm just supporting the idea of asset management and trading to upgrade in other needed areas for the Flames.

[_Q_]

Because Backlund is the number two centre now. Bennett hasn't taken on that role yet as much as we all like to think he has. Once Bennett establishes himself as a top line centre, that's when you entertain the idea of moving Backlund. Maybe it's next off season or the off season after that, but as of right now, you don't go into next season with Bennett as your number two.

As for Jankowski, I'm more open to the idea of trading him, but I don't know if trading him to move up a few spots in the draft is worthwhile.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Mattman

I don't know why people are so against trading Backlund and against trading Jankowski.

Sure both of them have upside and Backs has proven to be a quality player, and Jankowski still has yet to play a game for the Flames... but both are penciled in BEHIND Monahan and Bennett. So you would either be putting the rookie on the 4th line or waste Backlund's talent to limited 4th line ice time.

I can see the case for keeping both players but in this case where you have two centers (Monahan and Bennett) who look like they will be the better players than any other centers on your team (Backlund and Jankowski) then you don't create a log jam just to keep them. If trading one of them meant getting a badly needed RW the hell yes let's go for it.

It also looks like Mony, Johnny, Bennett, Hamilton and Brodie are the CP certified "untouchables". I don't see Backlund and Jankowski close to the untouchable area yet.

For the record I'm not for trading Mark Jankowski specifically, I'm just supporting the idea of asset management and trading to upgrade in other needed areas for the Flames.

Not sure if directed at me, but:

1. There is a difference between being against trading Backlund and/or Janko and being against trading them to move up 3 spots in a draft.

2. Mony is "there", but Bennett isn't "there" yet so to be competitive we still need Backlund. Plus even if Bennett gets "there", Backlund will still be nice to have as a #3 center.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Bunk

6th, 35th and Poirier.

If we could get the 3rd OA and a ~4th rounder back for this package I think that sounds pretty much perfect.

[Vinny01]

Benning looking to make playoffs right away and wants to win now. Send him Jankowski, Seiloff, and Porier for #5. 3 players that Weisbroad was involved with drafting that were "off the board picks".