Flames 2013 Draft Discussion

[moon]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Everyone was very high on Toews, especially considering his legendary performance at the World Juniors, and being one of Canada's best forwards at the World Championships without any NHL experience. Before he even became a Blackhawk he was regarded as clutch, a leader, and more importantly a winner. People knew he was the real deal before he even played a game for Chicago. He's become exactly what many thought he would be.

Honestly that top 5 was pretty much set in stone, with the question being who goes where after Johnson goes first. Nobody was disappointed in who they had.

The legendary performance at WJHC and his play at WHC both came after the draft. He was okay at the 2006 WJHC but it was 2007 that was his breakout performance.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Honestly that top 5 was pretty much set in stone, with the question being who goes where after Johnson goes first. Nobody was disappointed in who they had.

Funny because you could almost say these two drafts are similar in their make-up in the top 5.

Stud #1 D-Man: Johnson = Jones
High Scoring Elite Winger: Kessel = Drouin
Two-Way Centers: Staal, Toews, Backstrom= Mackinnon, Barkov, Lindholm

Obviously more depth through this draft, and probably more hyped top end talent, but in terms of the make up of the top 5 its quite similar.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That is my concern with Drouin too.

You see lots of this slick puck handlers that make people look silly in junior, but then in the NHL they usually can't pull off those moves (outside of Kane and Datsyuk).

I don't think Drouin is going to struggle at the next level. But with a plethora of undersized skill wingers in the system and on the big club, the team needs a player who can create his own offence and drive the play.

And most importantly, it needs a bloody #1C; picking in the top three is how you get them.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Funny because you could almost say these two drafts are similar in their make-up in the top 5.

Stud #1 D-Man: Johnson = Jones
High Scoring Elite Winger: Kessel = Drouin
Two-Way Centers: Staal, Toews, Backstrom= Mackinnon, Barkov, Lindholm

Obviously more depth through this draft, and probably more hyped top end talent, but in terms of the make up of the top 5 its quite similar.

And which side of history would you rather be on? (Not really you specifically Matt, just people in general.)

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Red John

And a lot of people felt that Zach Bogosian would be the better player at that point, especially since he was younger and all that.

Prospects get micro-analyzed at this point in the year but at the end of the day it's still unpredictable.

It's like playing poker - a good player gives himself the best shot at winning but luck is still involved at the end of the day.

There is some luck involved with things like injuries, personal situations and what not but a lot of developing guys comes down to how you handle your players.

It's no wonder Detroit could seamlessly transition from core player to core player when Holland knew what he was doing keeping those players in certain leagues for X amount of years, and then brings them in with a specific plan for where they play and for how long, before they're fully settled.

Or why Edmonton's first rebuild with Gagner, Cogliano, O'Marra and Nilsson went belly up when Lowe through many of them into the league prematurely. I mean Gagner was considered 2-3 years away but made the team out of a camp weighing not much more than a paper weight, and constantly finding himself on different lines and different situations.

You mention how Bogosian potentially had the highest ceiling of that stacked d-class, which is true. But Waddell saw his job in jeopardy and needed to justify that he was bringing talent through the organization so he threw him in there right away, even though he probably could have used another year in the CHL at the minimum(his upside was always down the line).

Look at Stamkos Tampa put him in right away, Melrose thought he was awful and gave him almost no time, and then suddenly he's given a top 6 role and he flourishes overnight. What would a year of Melrose done to his development? You can control a lot of these things as a GM if you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don't think Drouin is going to struggle at the next level. But with a plethora of undersized skill wingers in the system and on the big club, the team needs a player who can create his own offence and drive the play.

And most importantly, it needs a bloody #1C; picking in the top three is how you get them.




And which side of history would you rather be on? (Not really you specifically Matt, just people in general.)

Drouin isn't much like Kessel, he's more of a Patty Kane/MSL who can create for himself and others. He's definitely unlike most wingers you see at the top of a draft. Shinkaruk is basically a Kessel clone and it's why in this deep draft that type of player can most likely be had at 10-15.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by moon

The legendary performance at WJHC and his play at WHC both came after the draft. He was okay at the 2006 WJHC but it was 2007 that was his breakout performance.

Uhh the world Juniors are held before the draft, and we were talking about play one year after the draft, as he was comparing Toews' progression a year on to Staal's. Staal had a great NHL campaign and Toews became everybody's favourite prospect for his clutch performances for Canada. At that point in time, Toews was highly touted. Even if you want to argue argue about value in draft year, nobody blinked an eye with where Toews went.

[albertGQ]

During the draft, I was slightly surprised that Jordan Staal was picked before Toews

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

That's a bit revisionist. After Toews was drafted he got injured and had a pretty forgettable last season in college. Many people were questioning the pick as Staal was lighting the league up. I guess they weren't questioning it but at that time people were saying that Toews may have been a dude.

What? He missed a few games but his point totals went up and he was a team leader. His college season showed good progression, but the real progression showed when he had the Maple Leaf on his chest, and I can't recall anybody questioning Chicago for drafting him.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Look at Stamkos Tampa put him in right away, Melrose thought he was awful and gave him almost no time, and then suddenly he's given a top 6 role and he flourishes overnight. What would a year of Melrose done to his development? You can control a lot of these things as a GM if you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.

That doesn't sound right at all. From what I remember there was a disagreement between the coach and management in how to deploy Stamkos in his rookie year but not because anyone thought he was awful.

I believe the coach's stance was that he wanted to restrict Stamkos and keep him playing sheltered minutes and taking a game off entirely every once in a while in order to protect the young star player. Management on the other hand wanted Stamkos front and center and fully in the spotlight since they were promoting him so heavily.

I actually thought Stamkos was an example of how to correctly bring a rookie star player into the NHL as opposed to the Oiler mentality of immediately giving the young players more minutes than they can handle and risking injury by matching up rookies versus men.

[Red John]

Originally Posted by Dagger

There is some luck involved with things like injuries, personal situations and what not but a lot of developing guys comes down to how you handle your players.

It's no wonder Detroit could seamlessly transition from core player to core player when Holland knew what he was doing keeping those players in certain leagues for X amount of years, and then brings them in with a specific plan for where they play and for how long, before they're fully settled.

Or why Edmonton's first rebuild with Gagner, Cogliano, O'Marra and Nilsson went belly up when Lowe through many of them into the league prematurely. I mean Gagner was considered 2-3 years away but made the team out of a camp weighing not much more than a paper weight, and constantly finding himself on different lines and different situations.

You mention how Bogosian potentially had the highest ceiling of that stacked d-class, which is true. But Waddell saw his job in jeopardy and needed to justify that he was bringing talent through the organization so he threw him in there right away, even though he probably could have used another year in the CHL at the minimum(his upside was always down the line).

Look at Stamkos Tampa put him in right away, Melrose thought he was awful and gave him almost no time, and then suddenly he's given a top 6 role and he flourishes overnight. What would a year of Melrose done to his development? You can control a lot of these things as a GM if you know exactly what you're getting yourself into.

What Holland is real good at is keeping prospects in the AHL almost too long - it's the opposite of rushing them in and the advantage is once their 3-year ELCs expire they aren't proven stars yet so you can re-sign them cheaper.

Everyone likes to evaluate teams' drafting ability but that is only 50% of the equation, the other important part is development and Edmonton is the prime example of how if you're bad at the latter, it doesn't matter how good you are at the former.

Out of all their "future superstars" only Hall has taken a step forward this year.

It's development. Not just drafting.

[albertGQ]

Didn't TB almost trade Stamkos?

I thought one of the owners (Len Barrie?) wanted to trade him but the other (Saw guy) vetoed it?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Uhh the world Juniors are held before the draft, and we were talking about play one year after the draft, as he was comparing Toews' progression a year on to Staal's. Staal had a great NHL campaign and Toews became everybody's favourite prospect for his clutch performances for Canada. At that point in time, Toews was highly touted. Even if you want to argue argue about value in draft year, nobody blinked an eye with where Toews went.

The 2007 WJHC were not held before the 2006 draft in which Toews was selected and by the way it was worded I was under the impression it was after the draft. If it was after the season than I misunderstood.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Wolven

That doesn't sound right at all. From what I remember there was a disagreement between the coach and management in how to deploy Stamkos in his rookie year but not because anyone thought he was awful.

I believe the coach's stance was that he wanted to restrict Stamkos and keep him playing sheltered minutes and taking a game off entirely every once in a while in order to protect the young star player. Management on the other hand wanted Stamkos front and center and fully in the spotlight since they were promoting him so heavily.

I actually thought Stamkos was an example of how to correctly bring a rookie star player into the NHL as opposed to the Oiler mentality of immediately giving the young players more minutes than they can handle and risking injury by matching up rookies versus men.

Sorry, you're right. What I meant was that Melrose stated he wasn't ready and didn't deserve minutes. And those minutes he did get weren't with guys that could feed him the puck. Bad word choice on my part.

Stamkos' production only went up with increased minutes and role after Melrose was fired, so I don't really understand the difference between that and the Oilers approach. The sheltered minutes for Stamkos did little, seeing as the improvement came with a sudden change in responsibility and not a gradual progression. I don't know if he scores 50 the next year without the confidence he gained by scoring at a PPG clip without Melrose.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by moon

The 2007 WJHC were not held before the 2006 draft in which Toews was selected and by the way it was worded I was under the impression it was after the draft. If it was after the season than I misunderstood.

I was referring to the 2006 one where he had a minimal role(and less than stellar tournament as you mentioned) before the draft.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

Didn't TB almost trade Stamkos?

I thought one of the owners (Len Barrie?) wanted to trade him but the other (Saw guy) vetoed it?

Yeah, to New York because Barrie had little patience with Stamkos' lack of production early on.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Petr Nedved laughed when Jagr was taken after him and said "that guy is alot better than me."

Yeah, but there was a lot going on there. Czechoslovakia was fresh off of the Velvet Revolution and just held their first democratic election the same month Jagr was drafted. At the time, there were still some questions about how difficult it would be to get him over (if you recall, Nedved defected to Canada in junior).

As it turned out, freedom held out in Czechoslovakia and it wasn't an issue, but no one knew at the time. Jagr was still the highest drafted player from the Eastern Bloc (who didn't already defect) at the time which shows that teams were willing to risk it.

There is also the issue that scouting in that country was difficult right up until about this time, so it wasn't easy to view him or talk to him privately.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Drouin isn't much like Kessel, he's more of a Patty Kane/MSL who can create for himself and others. He's definitely unlike most wingers you see at the top of a draft. Shinkaruk is basically a Kessel clone and it's why in this deep draft that type of player can most likely be had at 10-15.

If he's a Kessel clone he'll be going higher than 10-15th.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by icecube

If he's a Kessel clone he'll be going higher than 10-15th.

In a normal draft, yes he would.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Regarding Stamkos - If I remember correctly, Melrose wanted to demote Stamkos, and was often overly-critical of him. Stamkos was languishing both in ice-time and with sub-par line mates. Melrose gets fired, Stamkos gets promoted, and the rest is history.

Without question, Stamkos was an NHL ready prospect that was being misused and whose development was probably not going well under Melrose.

The Oilers' comparisons don't exactly fit too well in my opinion. I think Hall was NHL ready, but he was injury prone from skating with his head down all the time. RNH was DEFINITELY NHL ready in skill level, but physically he wasn't. Could he have gained an extra year in Junior? To what ends? In hindsight, even though RNH had a fairly successful season for a rookie, he did get hurt. He is a tough one to judge from that respect. I liken him a bit to Gaurdeau in that respect - talented enough, but probably not physically ready (which is why I am personally happy with Gaudreau staying in the NCAA).

Yakupov was (is) NHL ready both developmentally and physically. He can't quite play his physical game to his benefit like he did in Junior, but he is physically ready for the NHL (just like Galchenyuk is, amongst others).

Will our 1-5 draft pick be ready? Depends who it is. I personally don't care if he plays in the NHL the following season or not. I just hope that regardless of what happens, the Flames don't rush him, don't stall his development, or in any way make a mistake. Send him back to Junior if he needs either a bit more development time (physically or skill-wise) or put him on a position to succeed on the roster (3rd line and up, sheltered minutes against opposing top lines, and good line mates).

Will be interesting to see what happens. Rushing is the worst, in my opinion. You don't want your possible future franchise to suddenly have a terrible injury.

[Phanuthier]

Honestly even if they are ready, I'd really rather see whoever we pick get sent back for an extra year of development. Sure some of them work out, but its never a bad idea for them to get bigger/stronger/faster in lower leagues...