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

[TheIronMaiden]

Personally, I think that trading down might be a better option than trading up. There are good players who should be left around the 9-12 mark. Maybe a team that's hungry for defensemen would pay the Flames a fair price.

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

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.

All I'm saying is having 4 very good centers (plus Stajan and other AHL centers) on 4 not-so-equal lines creates a bit of log jam. So why not turn those extra assets into a player who our team needs.

Janko and Backs are the only ones with value that aren't untouchable.

[LouCypher]

6th, 35th and one of Klimchuk or Poirier.

[Dan403]

I wouldn't give up anything for it.

Just keep the 6th and use the 6th.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by 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".

Why does anyone think Seiloff has any tangible value?
Poirier? Sure.
Seiloff? No.

[loob job]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why does anyone think Seiloff has any tangible value?
Poirier? Sure.
Seiloff? No.

And Poirers value isn't near what it used to be.

[JiriHrdina]

To answer the question being posed I would trade
6+ any prospect outside of Kylington or Gillies.
I would also do 6+Backlund without batting an eye.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by 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".

So we are are sending 3 promising assets to a division rival to move up 1 spot? How about hell no.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

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?

The only reason I might consider it (but not seriously) is because Bennett is coming off his ELC after next season.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To answer the question being posed I would trade
6+ any prospect outside of Kylington or Gillies.
I would also do 6+Backlund without batting an eye.

Would you add our late 2nds to 6+Backlund? I know I would. Both picks have a very small chance of even being bit players.

I would even do Backlund+Poirier+6+35. But I am a huge fan of JP, and I doubt think Poirier or 35 will be anything significant. Backlund is good, but hardly irreplaceable. Get Helm in UFA and the loss of Backlund doesn't matter.

People get too caught up in the optics of "moving up three spots". We would be trading for Puljujarvi, the pick upgrade optics are irrelevant. JP is probably one of the top 3-5 prospects in the world right now, whoever is available at 6 is not on that level, so we would need to pay to make up the gap. That some people would be opposed to 'sweetening the pot' by adding 10% lottery tickets or a good 3C is interesting to me. IMO, at this stage of the rebuild, management should be all about adding quality at the expense of quantity wherever possible. We don't need more B prospects or a 3C in the same way we need a impact top 6 RH forward.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Would you add our late 2nds to 6+Backlund? I know I would. Both picks have a very small chance of even being bit players.

I would even do Backlund+Poirier+6+35. But I am a huge fan of JP, and I doubt think Poirier or 35 will be anything significant. Backlund is good, but hardly irreplaceable. Get Helm in UFA and the loss of Backlund doesn't matter.

People get too caught up in the optics of "moving up three spots". We would be trading for Puljujarvi, the pick upgrade optics are irrelevant. JP is probably one of the top 3-5 prospects in the world right now, whoever is available at 6 is not on that level, so we would need to pay to make up the gap. That some people would be opposed to 'sweetening the pot' by adding 10% lottery tickets or a good 3C is interesting to me. IMO, at this stage of the rebuild, management should be all about adding quality at the expense of quantity wherever possible. We don't need more B prospects or a 3C in the same way we need a impact top 6 RH forward.

"One of the top 3-5 prospects in the world right now"

For sure.

Still, the difference between his chance of being an impact player and whoever else we could take at 6th overall being an impact player isn't Backlund plus our 2nd rounders.

A few years ago there was a player who was the "best prospect in the world not playing in the NHL yet"

He played in Liiga too, and put up much better numbers than Puljujarvi in his draft year. Then he played two more seasons in Liiga and was a point per game in those years combined. That's when he was given the "best prospect in the world not in the NHL yet".

Now, after a few seasons in the NHL he's a quality NHLer, but he's pretty much a 40 point player. Nothing special really. He has something like 30 goals in 250 NHL games.

People get too caught up in the hype around prospects, especially at draft time.

Trading for #3 straight up? Yeah, that's going to cost you.

Moving up from #6 to #3 is a lot different, and you shouldn't overpay for it.

[polak]

I'd be fine with Backlund and any of our forward prospects for 3.

It's not moving up 3 spots. It's moving up for a significant piece that could solidify our team for the foreseeable future.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why does anyone think Seiloff has any tangible value?
Poirier? Sure.
Seiloff? No.

Because Benning. And Weisbrod.

[Lubicon]

Not sure I would trade to move up to 3 but I certainly would to move up to 2OA.

[ComixZone]

To get Puljujarvi, and knowing that this is perceived as a weak draft depth wise - I'd trade them:

6th
35th
54th
56th

If required.

We're on the brink of not being able to draft at the high end of the draft again in the next decade (if things go as we hope), and Puljujarvi is an elite level prospect that fits an organizational hole perfectly.

Go big. Then do not trade out of the first 3 rounds in 2017. Ensure you make your picks next year to help keep the pool healthy.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

"One of the top 3-5 prospects in the world right now"

For sure.

Still, the difference between his chance of being an impact player and whoever else we could take at 6th overall being an impact player isn't Backlund plus our 2nd rounders.

See, that's where I disagree. Puljujarvi's floor is Backlund IMO. Not stylistically or role, but in terms of overall 'quality'. I personally think he will be at least a top 6 guy but will will see. He has legitimate star potential.

The 35OA is a lottery ticket. 30% chance at 200 games or whatever. Those odds suck. I think fans really overvalue draft picks to an extent, sometimes you need to use them as trading currency to improve your team. Puljujarvi might not be 'proven' as much as Hamilton was but I believe he's just as likely to reach his potential. To me, a trade for Puljujarvi would be much the same as the trade for Hamilton was, and I thought that was brilliant. Only difference is that Hammy was more proven at the time but still very much a 4/5 complimentary guy at the time. If he doesn't improve, the trade looks worse, same as an potential JP trade.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Dan403

I wouldn't give up anything for it.

Just keep the 6th and use the 6th.

Who do you want at 6th? I'm assuming you like one of Nylander, Brown, Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev, Keller, or Jost. We're debating over all 7 of these players. But we could just take one of them later (8th to 12th) while gaining another late first or early second. Let's say we like 3 players lmost equally when we draft at 6. Chances are, one of them will still be available at 10, or even 12.

5 of them are guaranteed to be there at the 8th pick, 3 of them at the 10th pick, and 1 at the 12th pick.

Trading down makes a lot of sense, as long as it's not lower than 12th.

Trading up to 3rd also makes sense, since we'd get a truly elite prospect for the long term. We hopefully won't be drafting top 10 again for a long time. Might as well get another potential franchise piece. Cup-winning teams always have several elite players. We have a lot of picks and center depth, so the trade would make sense. If Columbus does like Brown, we're very lucky.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why does anyone think Seiloff has any tangible value?
Poirier? Sure.
Seiloff? No.

Why does anyone think just stock piling on more pieces is going to suddenly get someone to bite?

Take a look at the Jackets roster...I don't think they lack depth any worse than the Flames or NHL players.

What they lack is high impact top of the roster type guys, especially up front having made the Seth Jones deal.

This is also a team that floundered for years trying to find a center for Rick Nash to play with.

As much as this is a new GM/President...these guys will know that their fan base might have that here we go again thing should they end up with a great winger and no center.

Columbus isn't going to want a heap of assets...especially with a potential expansion draft coming where they'd have to expose a bunch of them.

They'll want a quality asset coming back if they're going to move the 3 pick. The Flames are likely exposing Poirier in the expansion draft unless he really turns it on this year...to me that won't be considered a quality asset.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To answer the question being posed I would trade
6+ any prospect outside of Kylington or Gillies.
I would also do 6+Backlund without batting an eye.

Lots of fans like to trot out trade proposals where the Flames are receiving other teams assets for their junk that are totally unrealistic. The fact is Backlund is one of the best trade assets the Flames have so he has to be part of any possible trade proposal. He's a good player but he's not untradeable by any means and he's the type of player you can't get overly attached to as he's not a game changer or a core player.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Consensus and universal are not the same.

I think we're in hair splitting territory here. Dino's main point is to show an example of a highly rated pick that didn't pan out. Maybe Yak wasn't as highly thought of as JP but the point remains that picks are not guaranteed