Todd Button....

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Very few investments beat a passive index fund over time.

Which means it’s the wrong comparison for Tod button.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

We can go from Button is terrible on one end to Button didn't have control over the draft and others are to blame on the other.

But in the middle is Button has had a LONG run at this and he doesn't set himself apart from being average. Why not try someone new?

He's like a passive index fund to me. Decent results, safe, but let's try someone else or a different structure.

We need to improve.

All depends where you put the weighting.

I think more recent results suggest the group is doing a bang up job. That Dom article with an objective measure said the same.

So I wouldn't make the change given the trajectory.

To me you go back to 2015 (first Trevling draft) and forward and it's a pretty good draft record.

[Flamesfan05]

Yeah Button is not the S&P of scout

He had maybe 5 good drafts out of the 25 yrs or so

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Yeah Button is not the S&P of scout

He had maybe 5 good drafts out of the 25 yrs or so

That's silly.

The window that matters to me is Treliving's first 2015 and on.

That's 9 drafts of which 4 had 5 or less picks.

2015 - Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane - great draft
2016 - Tkachuk, Dube, Fox (and a few lesser players) - great draft
2017- 5 picks - Valimaki and Ruzicka - great bang for buck
2018 - 5 picks - Pospisil
2019 - 5 picks - Pelletier and Wolf - great bang for buck
2020 - Zary, Kuznetsov, Poirier, Soloyvov - great draft
2021 - Coronato, draft becomes a solid pass if Stromgren emerges
2022 - 3 picks - Bell a possibility - bad draft for no picks and for picks made
2023 - Honzek off to a rough start, but lots of potential in 4 different picks.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's silly.

The window that matters to me is Treliving's first 2015 and on.

That's 9 drafts of which 4 had 5 or less picks.

2015 - Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane - great draft
2016 - Tkachuk, Dube, Fox (and a few lesser players) - great draft
2017- 5 picks - Valimaki and Ruzicka - great bang for buck
2018 - 5 picks - Pospisil
2019 - 5 picks - Pelletier and Wolf - great bang for buck
2020 - Zary, Kuznetsov, Poirier, Soloyvov - great draft
2021 - Coronato, draft becomes a solid pass if Stromgren emerges
2022 - 3 picks - Bell a possibility - bad draft for no picks and for picks made
2023 - Honzek off to a rough start, but lots of potential in 4 different picks.

2021 still not writing off ciona or sergeev.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bingo

All depends where you put the weighting.

I think more recent results suggest the group is doing a bang up job. That Dom article with an objective measure said the same.

So I wouldn't make the change given the trajectory.

To me you go back to 2015 (first Trevling draft) and forward and it's a pretty good draft record.

I think you are probably the most brilliant, pragmatic flames fan on the planet that could probably work for them and be successful but I think you (like I) always think they are doing well "recently" in the drafting department.

I think its a fault of being generally optimistic which is awesome. We just always think we've been doing well recently. We always think the next crop is alright.

Jeremie Poirier is our Emile Poirier.

John Negrin is our Etienne Morin.

I should have never looked at this site. Depressing, and probably the same for all teams.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/...r00005090.html

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I think you are probably the most brilliant, pragmatic flames fan on the planet that could probably work for them and be successful but I think you (like I) always think they are doing well "recently" in the drafting department.

I think its a fault of being generally optimistic which is awesome. We just always think we've been doing well recently. We always think the next crop is alright.

Jeremie Poirier is our Emile Poirier.

John Negrin is our Etienne Morin.

I should have never looked at this site. Depressing, and probably the same for all teams.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/...r00005090.html

Outside of hoping that a first rounder would turn out in the aughts and early 20-teens, there wasn't much faith in how Calgary drafted at that time. It was pretty evident Sutter had a type and that type wasn't likely to be a star in the league post lock-out... but they still kept drafting those types.

As much as some folks are down on the Flames right now, there's more to be hopeful about with the current crop of prospects and with all the picks the Flames have accumulated.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I think its a fault of being generally optimistic which is awesome. We just always think we've been doing well recently. We always think the next crop is alright.

I think it's indicative of fan behavior. The more I observe this and other sites the more I see the college sports supporter mentality being embraced.

There are the eternally optimistic fans who support and pump up the team regardless of result. This is the "booster club" and they are the heart and soul of moral support. They pour over numbers and create reasons why the team is way better than it and drum up enthusiasm even in the darkest of timelines.

Then there is the emotionally invested hyper critical set who expect perfection every time the team takes to the field/ice. These are the "alumni" who have the team logo tattooed on their chests, live and die with every performance, but are "on the verge of pulling their support if things don't improve". The only results that matters are wins and having a talented team that has championship caliber players.

Then there are the fans that are there for the spectacle and be part of something. This is "the student body" and encompasses most fans. They'll come and go as the success of the team ebbs and flows as they are there for the party more than anything.

I think we see this mentality in this thread. As you pointed out, go take a look at the Flames draft list on hockey.db, compare it to others, and then try and convince anyone that the Flames are a good drafting team. Championship teams are built through the draft and that means striking gold with your early picks and finding the odd gem later in the draft. The Flames are terrible in the 1st round, being just over .500 for picks since the start of the century and under Button. Compare that to a team like Anaheim who have found a player with 22 of 26 picks (not counting the last couple drafts). You wonder why the team struggles? But the argument continues. The booster club beats the drum that the team is great at drafting, because of mid round selection success, ignoring the obvious failures in the important rounds. The alum recognizes the mid round success but looks at the failures in the first two or three rounds and demands improvement. The student body doesn't really care, they just want to see the draft and enjoy the hype cycle while it fleetingly lasts.

God, I hope the Flames get this draft right because the thought of listening how great another draft class is only to watch the team faceplant is just too painful to consider. If Button and the scouts fail with all this draft capital what is the next logical step?

Booster Club: "Keep plugging away! There are gems in that slag pile. They just need more picks!"

Alumni: "Clean house. These guys haven't found #### in a stock yard. Bring in people with an eye for talent."

Student Body: "Where's the beer?"

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

4 not 5, Wotherspoon was a bust
Baertschi a huge disappointment
Grandlund was ok for a 2nd rounder
Gaudreau a grand slam
Broissoit a steal where he was drafted

Even this pessimistic framing makes it seem like a strong draft.
It is the only draft in Flames history where all of them played in the NHL.

[Sylvanfan]

I would make a change myself. After this many seasons the first round picks are not yielding good enough results. Scouts are doing okay finding players in the lower rounds, but I do think status quo is not going to cut it going forward.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I would make a change myself. After this many seasons the first round picks are not yielding good enough results. Scouts are doing okay finding players in the lower rounds, but I do think status quo is not going to cut it going forward.

I'm on board with a new direction if only to change things up after decades of the same person running amateur scouting but when it comes to first round picks I feel that a lot of times GM's are making that call or at the very least a consensus is made amongst scouts and management on their picking order of the first few rounds. Was Honzek a Button pick or Conroy pick? I tend to think Conroy had a lot of input.

[Royle9]

Flames cant turf Todd because they'd lose the brotherly connection with Craig and therefor our pick target wouldn't be known by the media.

[Robbob]

I think the thing with the scouting staff also goes beyond who was drafted, but who they identified as an NHLer. Part of me thinks this is partly the reason that Tod is still around. At the end of the day, the GM makes the final decision. I think what has changed over the course of the last decade is probably all analytics and systems that the teams build. It is a far cry from the days where Sutter reached for Pelech because he needed a Warner replacement.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm on board with a new direction if only to change things up after decades of the same person running amateur scouting but when it comes to first round picks I feel that a lot of times GM's are making that call or at the very least a consensus is made amongst scouts and management on their picking order of the first few rounds. Was Honzek a Button pick or Conroy pick? I tend to think Conroy had a lot of input.

In that case I want a scout who's not afraid to tell the GM that he might be picking the wrong guy.

The fact that Button is onto his 6th GM...tells me he's a pretty good people pleaser. Good enough at his job and able to work with a lot of different personalities. All good traits. But as I said, time to change it up. If the next guy can better identify talent and bend the GM to take it good. If he can't...Next!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I think we see this mentality in this thread. As you pointed out, go take a look at the Flames draft list on hockey.db, compare it to others, and then try and convince anyone that the Flames are a good drafting team. Championship teams are built through the draft and that means striking gold with your early picks and finding the odd gem later in the draft. The Flames are terrible in the 1st round, being just over .500 for picks since the start of the century and under Button. Compare that to a team like Anaheim who have found a player with 22 of 26 picks (not counting the last couple drafts). You wonder why the team struggles? But the argument continues. The booster club beats the drum that the team is great at drafting, because of mid round selection success, ignoring the obvious failures in the important rounds. The alum recognizes the mid round success but looks at the failures in the first two or three rounds and demands improvement. The student body doesn't really care, they just want to see the draft and enjoy the hype cycle while it fleetingly lasts.

It’s a really terrible analogy all around, but it’s mostly terrible because the “alumni” in this scenario are the ones looking at limited data.

Between 2002-2022
Anaheim found a player in 9/9 top 10 picks
Calgary found a player in 5/5 top 10 picks

Anaheim found a player in 4/6 middle-ten picks
Calgary found a player in 3/3 middle-ten picks

Anaheim found a player in 7/10 late round picks
Calgary found a player in 3/10 late round picks

Jury is still out on some guys (like Pelletier) and I included guys like Zary and Mintyukov who haven’t played a ton of games but have done decently against their draft year.

To answer “you wonder why the team struggles,” it’d probably be because they don’t make as many picks and Button doesn’t have as much to work with. If the “alumni” (lol) wanted a proper analysis, it’d have to go deeper than you’ve gone and actually include comparisons against other picks in the same area, in the same rounds, for different teams. Even looking at their successes together. Phaneuf and Getzlaf were both great 1st round picks. But they could’ve been Jessiman or Pouliot. Both teams didn’t just “hit,” they picked significantly better players than guys ranked around the same spot.

Until you go deep like that, there’s not much point in “alumni” inflating their own ego about how they analyze results.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I think you are probably the most brilliant, pragmatic flames fan on the planet that could probably work for them and be successful but I think you (like I) always think they are doing well "recently" in the drafting department.

I think its a fault of being generally optimistic which is awesome. We just always think we've been doing well recently. We always think the next crop is alright.

Jeremie Poirier is our Emile Poirier.

John Negrin is our Etienne Morin.

I should have never looked at this site. Depressing, and probably the same for all teams.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/...r00005090.html

I'm an optimist for sure, but what draft years in particular are you disagreeing with me?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s a really terrible analogy all around, but it’s mostly terrible because the “alumni” in this scenario are the ones looking at limited data.

Between 2002-2022
Anaheim found a player in 9/9 top 10 picks
Calgary found a player in 5/5 top 10 picks

Anaheim found a player in 4/6 middle-ten picks
Calgary found a player in 3/3 middle-ten picks

Anaheim found a player in 7/10 late round picks
Calgary found a player in 3/10 late round picks

Jury is still out on some guys (like Pelletier) and I included guys like Zary and Mintyukov who haven’t played a ton of games but have done decently against their draft year.

To answer “you wonder why the team struggles,” it’d probably be because they don’t make as many picks and Button doesn’t have as much to work with. If the “alumni” (lol) wanted a proper analysis, it’d have to go deeper than you’ve gone and actually include comparisons against other picks in the same area, in the same rounds, for different teams. Even looking at their successes together. Phaneuf and Getzlaf were both great 1st round picks. But they could’ve been Jessiman or Pouliot. Both teams didn’t just “hit,” they picked significantly better players than guys ranked around the same spot.

Until you go deep like that, there’s not much point in “alumni” inflating their own ego about how they analyze results.

I say answer the content. Don't just label it optimistic or whatever the hell Lanny said without pointing to where I'm skewed.

If I'm an optimist challenge my summary.

I say 2015 on is the correct timeline.

And I summarized each draft year by success, pointing out when we had limited picks or no early picks.

Where was I skewed to the positive?

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm an optimist for sure, but what draft years in particular are you disagreeing with me?

I think you need 6 years after a draft to be able to assess if it was successful or not as a whole. Gives enough time to cylce through most ELC's and where the players are at 24.
So from 2018 and forward I would say those are more in the could be good or really good state, but still conditional.

So the last 5 you can close the book on are 13 to 17. I'd peg 15 as very good than great. Anderson was a nice find, and Mangiapane is a definitel NHL'er. Kylington...still a bit undecided. But none of them is a true top line player. Anderson can play in that spot, but the other two are more mid roster.

Neither 13 or 14 were very good after the high top pick.

Dube from 2016 is an example of how up and down a player can be within the time frame. 2 years ago looked like a very astute pick. Today he's all but finished. It's hard to put that on the scouts. But it is a results driven business and the end result on him will be a bit of meh.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think you need 6 years after a draft to be able to assess if it was successful or not as a whole. Gives enough time to cylce through most ELC's and where the players are at 24.
So from 2018 and forward I would say those are more in the could be good or really good state, but still conditional.

So the last 5 you can close the book on are 13 to 17. I'd peg 15 as very good than great. Anderson was a nice find, and Mangiapane is a definitel NHL'er. Kylington...still a bit undecided. But none of them is a true top line player. Anderson can play in that spot, but the other two are more mid roster.

Neither 13 or 14 were very good after the high top pick.

2015 - three NHL regulars without a 1st round pick is hitting it out of the park
2016 - three more NHLers, two stars, hitting it out of the park
2017 - no 2nd or 3rd, still found two NHL players (pass)
2018 - no 1st, 2nd or 3rd, still found a player

Not sure how Button doesn't get some credit here.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

2015 - three NHL regulars without a 1st round pick is hitting it out of the park
2016 - three more NHLers, two stars, hitting it out of the park
2017 - no 2nd or 3rd, still found two NHL players (pass)
2018 - no 1st, 2nd or 3rd, still found a player

Not sure how Button doesn't get some credit here.

Where did I say I dont give him any credit for those drafts?

My focus is less on number of players and more on the impact the players eventually have. Things do change and evolve on that front.

To me 2015 is more of solo homerun, so yes a good draft. But I'd counter this is after leaving 7 runners on base the previous 3 at bats and not cashing any in.

2018, I still say needs one more year, and yes Pospisil looks like a nice find. He's played 63 games. I want to see how this 2 year contract extension works out before I'm willing to close the book.

The Devils advocate might suggest that not finding support players in 2013 or 14 is part of why there's a pick deficit in future seasons.

The team needs to shift its behavior to not trade picks and try to use what they have and get more. Conroy has taken some good steps. Next is to get more out of them.