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

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by edslunch

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

True, highly rated picks sometimes don't pan out. But has Bennett panned out yet? Not really. But Flames fans are in love with him because of flashes we've seen and what we hope he becomes. That's the same reason teams are in love with Puljujarvi. He' no more (or less) a mystery box than Bennett is.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

True, highly rated picks sometimes don't pan out. But has Bennett panned out yet? Not really. But Flames fans are in love with him because of flashes we've seen and what we hope he becomes. That's the same reason teams are in love with Puljujarvi. He' no more (or less) a mystery box than Bennett is.

Bennett played 2 rounds of playoffs in the NHL and did okay. He then scored 36pts as a 19 year old rookie. Puljujarvi has not played any games in the NHL and he has not played any significant time on North American ice. How he is not more of a mystery box than Bennett?

[JiriHrdina]

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.

Yup I add the second with no hesitation

[JiriHrdina]

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.

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.

Granlund?
Different story as he was never considered at this level in terms of best prospect. He got that designation because better prospects in his draft class had already graduated? Assuming I'm right that it's Granlund

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by edslunch

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

The key point though is JP is more highly and universally regarded now than Yak was then. There were red flags with Yak even back then

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with the only caveat being that the acquisition price of a starting goalie may include some of those 2nds.

[ComixZone]

I'd be okay if the Flames pulled a good ol "we'll give you everything we have on the draft floor for #3 overall".

6th
35th
54th
56th
66th
96th
126th
156th
166th
186th

(I can't imagine Treliving would give up this much though, it's downright silly)

The "consensus" has this being a relatively weak draft outside of the top 10, so as mentioned earlier. Go big and crazy, go after the "sure thing" that happens to fit an organizational need perfectly. Who knows if Columbus would even accept it though.

I'm not overly fond of packaging Backlund + 6th + whatever though, I view Monahan-Bennett-Backlund as centre depth that can win you a Stanley Cup.

[Poe969]

so Puljujarvi is a mystery box...I guess Matthews is too and the leafs don't know if he'll even pan out so the Flames should offer up Colborne and a second rounder....maybe even 2 second rounders (but not 35) for Matthews. Anything more than that and it's not worth it for the Flames...

That's how a lot of people's arguments sound. And I don't get why people are so hung up on Backlund, the guy is good and probably one of the best third line C's in the league but if trading him gets you a legit top 6 player with franchise player potential, you take it. It's a lot easier to replace a 3C then it is to replace a top 6 winger...especially one who's over 6' 200 lbs. I think the worse case scenario for Puljujarvi is that he turns into a better Backlund.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'd be okay if the Flames pulled a good ol "we'll give you everything we have on the draft floor for #3 overall".

6th
35th
54th
56th
66th
96th
126th
156th
166th
186th

The "consensus" has this being a relatively weak draft outside of the top 10, so as mentioned earlier. Go big and crazy, go after the "sure thing" that happens to fit an organizational need perfectly. Who knows if Columbus would even accept it though.

I'm not overly fond of packaging Backlund + 6th + whatever though, I view Monahan-Bennett-Backlund as centre depth that can win you a Stanley Cup.

This draft is a pretty deep first round no? With guys like Jost, Keller, Chychrun being rumored to go 11-15th. I heard the second round is not that deep.

I hate the idea of trading all our picks to move up 3 spots. How the heck are we getting a goalie? Reimer I guess?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This draft is a pretty deep first round no? With guys like Jost, Keller, Chychrun being rumored to go 11-15th. I heard the second round is not that deep.

I hate the idea of trading all our picks to move up 3 spots. How the heck are we getting a goalie? Reimer I guess?

Yeah, it poses other issues - and it makes our 2017 picks very valuable internally. Can't afford to trade away too many picks in consecutive years, but I think we're nearing a stage of depth organizationally where the time to strike is nearing.

LA spent significant assets to acquire Richards and Carter before contending for the cup, and while this is a slightly different approach than that - I believe it'd help push us into contention quicker, and for a long time.

I'm not looking at it as a "wow that's a stupid amount of picks to give up to move up 3 spots", I'm viewing it within the tunnel-vision of "holy !@#$, I love Puljujarvi".

The goalie would have to be acquired via free agency in my crazy proposal, which yeah - leaves us with Reimer, or potentially dealing a 2017 pick (scary) for one of the potentially available cast-offs like Fleury or Varlamov.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

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

And you know what that lesson teaches us? That even if all the independent scouting services agree and suggest a consensus, that consensus could in fact be an illusion. We have concrete sources that EDM, CGY and TOR didn't have Yak #1 despite him appearing to be the consensus #1. Teaches us the danger is assuming consensus amongst the scouting services is mirrored by the teams.

How can that lesson be applied to this draft? Well I don't think we should assume all the teams have Tkachuk and Dubois top 5. Therefore one of them may still fall to us.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Poe969

And I don't get why people are so hung up on Backlund, the guy is good and probably one of the best third line C's in the league

Because he's, contrary to popular assertion, not a third line center. He's our second line center and he's effective as our second line center.

Remember how the Avs made a transition from Ryan O'Rielly and Paul Stastny to Nathan McKinnon and Matt Duchene, and it totally backfired because those two don't have the polish to play the center position at the same level as the other two? The Avs are way worse right now, than they were two years ago. They bought into the hype of youth and gave up on having bridges to help the youth along. That's what people are inviting when they talk about trading away Mikael Backlund. Stajan is not a bridge. Monahan is not there yet.

if trading him gets you a legit top 6 player with franchise player potential, you take it.

You're trading, contrary to popular assertion, a legit top 6 center plus a potential top 6 forward, for a legit top 6 winger.

I think the worse case scenario for Puljujarvi is that he turns into a better Backlund.

I love Jesse Puljujarvi.

But the question is not about his upside.

It's about "are you willing to go down tank another year?

Puljujarvi's ceiling isn't even that much higher than Tkachuk, Dubois, Brown or Keller. It's a high ceiling but the real value-added is that Puljujarvi is more likely to play in the NHL next season, the others will need development time. So you're trading up to Puljujarvi because of impatience. And impatience is fair. Except here's the deal: You want Puljujarvi to contribute ASAP so we are a playoff team. Take off Backlund and we are not a playoff team.

Backlund is the ONLY center we have right now who drives play consistently from the D-zone to O-Zone without getting lost defensively or unable to clear the puck or unable to create separation against traps.

I love Sam Bennett but he's not at that level yet.
Monahan can't skate well enough to play that style.
Jankowski's never played an NHL game.
Puljujarvi and Gaudreau are wingers.

You are basically Oiler-izing the Flames if you trade away Mikael Backlund for a winger prospect. May as well trade Gio for Darnell Nurse while you're at it. After all Nurse can skate really good and he's the next Chris Pronger, hockey fans said so.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'd be okay if the Flames pulled a good ol "we'll give you everything we have on the draft floor for #3 overall".

6th
35th
54th
56th
66th
96th
126th
156th
166th
186th

The "consensus" has this being a relatively weak draft outside of the top 10, so as mentioned earlier. Go big and crazy, go after the "sure thing" that happens to fit an organizational need perfectly. Who knows if Columbus would even accept it though.

I'm not overly fond of packaging Backlund + 6th + whatever though, I view Monahan-Bennett-Backlund as centre depth that can win you a Stanley Cup.

No way Columbus does that, for the same reason that they said no in 2012. It's basically one blue chipper for one great prospect, one good prospect, and a bunch of scratch and wins. Backlund or Jankowski+ would have to be on the table, and probably more.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

No way Columbus does that, for the same reason that CBJ said no in 2012. It's basically one blue chipper for one great prospect, one good prospect, and a bunch of scratch and wins. Backlund or Jankowski+ would have to be on the table, and probably more.

Yeah, it all comes down to what's offered. I still think all those picks are significant value - but it'd be decided on what else Columbus is being offered, and if Columbus was sure that the player they wanted would still be there at 6.

[Poe969]

So you're saying that if the Flames didn't have Backlund, they wouldn't be a playoff team. That would suck, I mean without him the Flames would probably end up with 25th in the league or something!

Contrary to what some believe, Backlund is not a real top 6 center. He is on the Flames and that's because Bennett hasn't hit his strie yet. Backlund is a good 2 way player who has scored 20 goals once in his career and that was only this year. If you think that your second line center should only be a 20 goal scorer (in his best year) then I think you have different idea of what a second line center should be. He was the Flames second best center but that more speaks to the lack of depth on the team. The lack of depth on the team is there because the Flames haven't had enough good young players. The players the Flames have/had in the system seem to mostly be bottom 6 guys and teams just don't win with 2 or 3 top 6 players and the rest "bottom 6" guys.

The team needs more legitimate top 6 talented players, not really good bottom 6 guys who on their best year score 20 goals.

[The Yen Man]

If all it took to move up to 3rd was our 6th and Backlund, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And I think the general consensus among the league (and not Flames fans here) would be Treliving just pulled a fast one on Columbus.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So you're saying that if the Flames didn't have Backlund, they wouldn't be a playoff team. That would suck, I mean without him the Flames would probably end up with 25th in the league or something!

Contrary to what some believe, Backlund is not a real top 6 center. He is on the Flames and that's because Bennett hasn't hit his strie yet. Backlund is a good 2 way player who has scored 20 goals once in his career and that was only this year. If you think that your second line center should only be a 20 goal scorer (in his best year) then I think you have different idea of what a second line center should be. He was the Flames second best center but that more speaks to the lack of depth on the team. The lack of depth on the team is there because the Flames haven't had enough good young players. The players the Flames have/had in the system seem to mostly be bottom 6 guys and teams just don't win with 2 or 3 top 6 players and the rest "bottom 6" guys.

The team needs more legitimate top 6 talented players, not really good bottom 6 guys who on their best year score 20 goals.

Not one person here thinks or has said Backlund is a 2nd line center.
They have said he is the Flames 2nd line center.
And he is, until Bennet or someone takes that away, hopefully next year.
Backlund is the 3rd line center on a cup contender.

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So you're saying that if the Flames didn't have Backlund, they wouldn't be a playoff team. That would suck, I mean without him the Flames would probably end up with 25th in the league or something!

Contrary to what some believe, Backlund is not a real top 6 center. He is on the Flames and that's because Bennett hasn't hit his strie yet. Backlund is a good 2 way player who has scored 20 goals once in his career and that was only this year. If you think that your second line center should only be a 20 goal scorer (in his best year) then I think you have different idea of what a second line center should be. He was the Flames second best center but that more speaks to the lack of depth on the team. The lack of depth on the team is there because the Flames haven't had enough good young players. The players the Flames have/had in the system seem to mostly be bottom 6 guys and teams just don't win with 2 or 3 top 6 players and the rest "bottom 6" guys.

The team needs more legitimate top 6 talented players, not really good bottom 6 guys who on their best year score 20 goals.

I completely agree with you. At some point, something has to give with the assessment of this team and ending up in 25th. If we have an amazing top line and top 3 d-core, good center depth, and a capable 4th line, something is wrong here. It's about the depth and talent this team currently has. This includes terrible goaltending.

I would include Backlund in any conversation to get the No. 3 pick. Talent at some point yields success, except with Edmonton.

[Vulcan]

This is the worse time to be getting draft picks or trying to move up. They are way overvalued leading up to the draft. The time to pick up draft picks is this summer up until the trade deadline. I'm against trying to move up at this time unless it only involves draft picks.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So you're saying that if the Flames didn't have Backlund, they wouldn't be a playoff team. That would suck, I mean without him the Flames would probably end up with 25th in the league or something!

Despite how poor our goaltending was:

With Backlund on the ice this season at 5-on-5, the Flames outscored opponents 47-to-36 (we scored 56.6% of the goals)

With Backlund off the ice this season at 5-on-5, the Flames were outscored by opponents 105-132 (we scored 44.3% of the goals)

So let's think about that for a moment.


When Backlund was on the ice, despite our team having the worst goaltending in the NHL, we dominated opponents at a similar rate to how the Panthers(56.1% / Luongo), Penguins (55.4%SCFists), Capitals (55.4% / President's Trophy / Holtby), Rangers (55.0% / Lundqvist), Lightning (54.4%/Bishop/ECFists), and Sharks (54.1% / SCFists) dominated their opponents.

When Backlund was off the ice, opponents dominated us at a rate comparable to Toronto(42.9%), Edmonton(44.1%), and Vancouver (44.6%)

Just because we were bad this year, doesn't mean we couldn't be worse.

I think you have different idea of what a second line center should be.

My idea of a second line center is a player who impacts the game in a way where the team's second line outscores the top 6 line they are matched up with.

Not sure about your idea of a second line center. But I guess getting blown out and getting your 20 goals, half of them on the first unit power play is that.