Flames Development Camp July 10th - 16th

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

If being a sports fan for the last 30 years has taught me anything it's that you can't bank on "can't-miss" prospects to have long and successful careers in any top league of any sport. You can hope that they pan out, but you cannot 100% count on them to. This applies exponentially more to late-round picks. We certainly can't expect a scenario where, for example, 7th-round pick Tim Harrison pots 30 goals in a season, so there's no need to prepare for a scenario where that happens. Sure, it's a 'preferable scenario', but it's unlikely to happen. May as well focus on improving our depth in that position rather than assuming or planning for long-shot prospects to fill major organisational needs.

I personally think Monahan & Jankowski have first line C potential & I imagine the vast majority on here would agree. I wouldn't bet my life on either of them being legitimate 1st-liners on a good team, but I also wouldn't rule out both of them panning out & forming a lethal 1-2 punch down the middle as we haven't seen since Nieuwy/Gilmour. Having them in the stable of prospects is amazing & I am very excited to watch them develop, but I hope management continues to address that organisational need in upcoming drafts instead of assuming that we're all sorted for the foreseeable.

Yes I agree with pretty much everything you said. My issue was with the posters preference for top-3 picks. If we're talking what is preferable (ie, not necessarily realistic), I would prefer to never draft in the top 3 and have 3-7th round picks turning into stars. We already have a couple potentials in 4th rounders Gaudreau and Brodie. Its not that I'm holding out hope for that to happen, I'm just saying that top-3 picks shouldn't really be preferable over anything, as it means the team sucks. What should be preferable is having a development system good enough that it doesn't matter where a kid was drafted, they have a chance to become anything. The potential of every kid drafted is almost limitless.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Usually. So let people be overly optimistic about the prospects in the summer, cause God knows there won't be much to be excited about during the regular season.

Oh, I know. I love it myself.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

For the record I think Monahan projects into a player like Jordan Staal. A really good 50 point selke level C that can probably but up 65 points if given the right sort of minutes.

I have him rated as one of our three AAA prospects (check the link below) and the Flames second best prospect behind Baertschi.

I am not really sure how that is a negative projection.

I also think it is possible he matures into a really good 1C. Just like I think it is possible he doesn't realize his potential as being a Jordan Staal level player. But I think the cautious but realistic projection for him right now is to be a 2C...

I think the J. Staal comparison is WAY off.

Monahan is pretty clearly a better player and a better prospect, and I think that it is highly unlikely that his career taps out at the younger-Staal's level. Take a look at their juniour stats: Monahan has played three years of juniour, has well surpassed the point/game plateau each year, and he was the best player on his team by an obscene margin in his draft year. Staal's best season was his draft year in which he registered a point/game exactly, and was the fourth-highest scoring player on a championship team, surrounded by talent. Monahan's success from last season was entirely self-manufactured. Staal had help.

I get the desire to temper expectations, but this is not the right way to go about it. Monahan should project to a 70–80 point top-line centre, with the possibility that he surpasses that as a franchise talent. An unlikely possibility, but even if he does not meet his potential (he has been most ferequently compared to Jonathan Toews and the OTHER Staal), he should still be expected to be better than a really good #2 centre.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

...I personally think Monahan & Jankowski have first line C potential & I imagine the vast majority on here would agree. I wouldn't bet my life on either of them being legitimate 1st-liners on a good team, but I also wouldn't rule out both of them panning out & forming a lethal 1-2 punch down the middle as we haven't seen since Nieuwy/Gilmour...

I personally see the Flames future centre depth comparable to the Boston Bruins with Monahan and Jankowski slotting in at #1 and #2. Not that they will in any way resemble Bergeron's or Krejci's game; rather, they look like they could provide an excellent, balanced centreing duo—both capable and effective top-line players, but neither one a superstar. It's an awesome expectation.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

This is all very rich coming from New Era, who has previously compared Sean Monahan to busts & disappointing players

I was actually commenting on the overall rating rather than on Monahan. I used Monahan as a direct comparison to the writer's expectations since he was just drafted and there was a substantial body of work claiming him to be rated higher. As I said I did not share those views but was using them as expert review on the player and projection. I was actually trying to show that many of our prospects were as or more impressive than Monahan and that should bode well going forward. Of course this is all opinion and who knows? I don't see any reason to project any player lower than they were projected comin into camp based on direct comparisons. I'm not going to bite on your insult and will instead allow the moderators to do their job.

[tempz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the J. Staal comparison is WAY off.

Monahan is pretty clearly a better player and a better prospect, and I think that it is highly unlikely that his career taps out at the younger-Staal's level. Take a look at their juniour stats: Monahan has played three years of juniour, has well surpassed the point/game plateau each year, and he was the best player on his team by an obscene margin in his draft year. Staal's best season was his draft year in which he registered a point/game exactly, and was the fourth-highest scoring player on a championship team, surrounded by talent. Monahan's success from last season was entirely self-manufactured. Staal had help.

I get the desire to temper expectations, but this is not the right way to go about it. Monahan should project to a 70–80 point top-line centre, with the possibility that he surpasses that as a franchise talent. An unlikely possibility, but even if he does not meet his potential (he has been most ferequently compared to Jonathan Toews and the OTHER Staal), he should still be expected to be better than a really good #2 centre.

Staal fluctuated between second and third line center on the 2005-2006 Petes in his draft year. He was quite often behind Dan Ryder and Jordan Morrison on the depth chart. And he still put up a pile of points. Monohan got a ####load more ice time than him.

How can you say he's a better prospect when Staal was drafted second overall ahead of Toews, Backstrom, Kessel? There is absolutely nothing what so ever that gives an indication of Sean Mohohan being a better prospect/player than Staal was/is except for your homerism. Reality is he hasnt played a single minute in the NHL and he could very well turn into Daniel Tkaczuk for all we know.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by New Era

I was actually commenting on the overall rating rather than on Monahan. I used Monahan as a direct comparison to the writer's expectations since he was just drafted and there was a substantial body of work claiming him to be rated higher. As I said I did not share those views but was using them as expert review on the player and projection. I was actually trying to show that many of our prospects were as or more impressive than Monahan and that should bode well going forward. Of course this is all opinion and who knows? I don't see any reason to project any player lower than they were projected comin into camp based on direct comparisons. I'm not going to bite on your insult and will instead allow the moderators to do their job.

What would they have to do regarding his post? Everything he said was spot on.

[FBI]

Yeah this used to be the best go-to thread for the dog days of summer. Now where to go?

[tempz]

This thread went from



To



In just a few pages.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the J. Staal comparison is WAY off.

Monahan is pretty clearly a better player and a better prospect, and I think that it is highly unlikely that his career taps out at the younger-Staal's level. Take a look at their juniour stats: Monahan has played three years of juniour, has well surpassed the point/game plateau each year, and he was the best player on his team by an obscene margin in his draft year. Staal's best season was his draft year in which he registered a point/game exactly, and was the fourth-highest scoring player on a championship team, surrounded by talent. Monahan's success from last season was entirely self-manufactured. Staal had help.

I get the desire to temper expectations, but this is not the right way to go about it. Monahan should project to a 70–80 point top-line centre, with the possibility that he surpasses that as a franchise talent. An unlikely possibility, but even if he does not meet his potential (he has been most ferequently compared to Jonathan Toews and the OTHER Staal), he should still be expected to be better than a really good #2 centre.

Monahan is also 11 months older than Staal was at the time they were each drafted, so Monahan's 17 year old season is a more apt comparison to Staal's pre-draft year.

And you need to keep in mind that he's still just a prospect. Saying that he's "highly unlikely" to top out at a level that would make him one of the most productive #6 overall draft picks in modern NHL history is a little much. Yeah it's a good draft, but 18 years olds are far from sure things. Here are the last bunch of #6 picks starting from 5 years ago. How many would you take over Jordan Staal:

Filatov
Gagner
Brassard
Brule
Montoya
Michalek
Upshall
M. Koivu
Hartnell
Finley
Fata
Tkaczuk
Devereaux
Kelly

There are usually about 10 centers in the league at any given time putting up 70+ points which means you're only getting maybe 1 or 2 of those guys out of even a good draft. All of MacKinnon, Barkov, Lindholm, and Monahan have the capability to get there, but you can't simply assume they will. Even a guy like Toews has only hit the 70 point mark once in his career so far.

Look at the 2003 draft. A boatload of excellent centers were taken yet only 2 of them (Staal and Getzlaf) have managed more than two 70 point seasons in the decade since.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Monahan is also 11 months older than Staal was at the time they were each drafted, so Monahan's 17 year old season is a more apt comparison to Staal's pre-draft year.

And you need to keep in mind that he's still just a prospect. Saying that he's "highly unlikely" to top out at a level that would make him one of the most productive #6 overall draft picks in modern NHL history is a little much. Yeah it's a good draft, but 18 years olds are far from sure things. Here are the last bunch of #6 picks starting from 5 years ago. How many would you take over Jordan Staal:

Filatov
Gagner
Brassard
Brule
Montoya
Michalek
Upshall
M. Koivu
Hartnell
Finley
Fata
Tkaczuk
Devereaux
Kelly

There are usually about 10 centers in the league at any given time putting up 70+ points which means you're only getting maybe 1 or 2 of those guys out of even a good draft. All of MacKinnon, Barkov, Lindholm, and Monahan have the capability to get there, but you can't simply assume they will. Even a guy like Toews has only hit the 70 point mark once in his career so far.

Look at the 2003 draft. A boatload of excellent centers were taken yet only 2 of them (Staal and Getzlaf) have managed more than two 70 point seasons in the decade since.

The problem with comparing Monahan straight across with other players selected in the 6 slot is that it really isn't a comparable because of the talent in each of the draft. Monahan would be a top 3 pick in a bunch of those drafts. A better way would be top compare scouting grades. I think when you just look at draft position you aren't looking at the complete picture.

[FlameZilla]

Has anyone uploaded some highlights of Monahan & Gaudreau tearing up the development camp last week?

[kehatch]

I consider the top 15 players at a position as true top line players. The reason being that a contenders are generally built with the best players.

That means roughly 9 of these guys (on average) are drafted every season. The majority in the top 5.

Monahan or Jankowski may end up as top 15 players at their position. But right now the odds say no. And they will continue to say no until those players proved them wrong.

People accuse me of under estimating Monahan. But a majority of those people have never seen him play. They rate him that way because he is a Flame. If we drafted Lindholm or Hovart or Domi people would be talking about them.

All I am saying is that there is more to do. More bullets needed in the gun. More time to develop. Some people are acting like our issues at centre are over and this team will be competitive in a season or two. They are predicting this based on prospects they have hardly ever seen.

I am saying this will take a bit. Take enjoyment out of the development and prospects. But the high fives are premature and some are setting themselves up for a rocky January.

Just my opinion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I consider the top 15 players at a position as true top line players. The reason being that a contenders are generally built with the best players.

I don't particularly like your metric for measuring "top line players". Based on your explanation, I would completely agree, but by the same token, I disagree with the approach you have taken here. Top line players are players who can play on any top line on any NHL team. There are surely more than 15 of those at every position: The Boston Bruins did not have a single centre who cracked the top-twenty in the regular season last year, and yet they had two centres who are easily "top-line" players. Sam Gagner, Jiri Tlusty and Nazeem Kadri were all ranked close to #15 in total points in the NHL last season at centre, but I am not convinced that any of them could competently centre the top-line on every NHL team.

Originally Posted by kehatch

That means roughly 9 of these guys (on average) are drafted every season. The majority in the top 5.

I understand very well that there will be players in the top-end of the draft who will fail to reach their potential, but it seems silly to me that we as fans should anticipate this happening for the Flames top prospects. Agreed. Monahan may not reach his full potential, but in such an event, I think that this would almost certainly come as an unpleasant surprise. Given that this was a deep draft, the odds on him being one of those top-nine are actually pretty promising.

Originally Posted by kehatch

Monahan or Jankowski may end up as top 15 players at their position. But right now the odds say no. And they will continue to say no until those players proved them wrong.

I disagree. You yourself said that that roughly nine players from each draft project to be "top-line" players by your metric. By mine, that number would probably be a little higher. In my opinion they both could reasonably still project to be players that are competent centring the Flames' top-line.

At this point, Monahan's potential is considerably higher than Jankowski's, and he currently appears like a player poised to meet his potential. He has size, strength, skill, pedigree, commitment and a high hockey IQ: Everything about him suggests that he will be a very good top-line player. Why would we bet against him meeting that potential?

As for the "odds", there is a problem with these sorts of statistical projections that factor draft position, age, etc. as a means to indicate the likelihood of success. Not all drafts are created equal, and not all players have the same developmental path to travel to get to the NHL. Monahan was a high draft pick in a very deep draft with a lot of high-end talent. This on its own should bode very well for him to meet his potential. This year's draft was (somewhat unfairly) compared to 2003, which saw 17 centres taken in the top-fifty: seven of those are arguably "top-line" players. The 2006 draft—which was not as deep as the 2013 class—saw 15 centres drafted in the top-fifty, and three of those are arguably "top-line" players today. I selected these two drafts because they featured an unusually high number of centres drafted in the top-fifty—there were 16 drafted in the top-fifty this year. Monahan was the fourth centre drafted in the 2013 draft: If we project more than three but less than seven top-line centres to emerge from this class, then I would say the odds are pretty favourable that Monahan will be one of them.

Originally Posted by kehatch

People accuse me of under estimating Monahan. But a majority of those people have never seen him play. They rate him that way because he is a Flame. If we drafted Lindholm or Hovart or Domi people would be talking about them.

No. People accuse you of underestimating Monahan because your projection of his ceiling is lower than those suggested by more seasoned professional observers. I understand that you are seeking to err on the side of caution, by recognising that there will be players in the top-ten who unfortunately do not meet their draft potential. (For the record, I would consider J. Staal as one of those players—he projected to be a top-line centre, but it appears that he may never be one at this point). Reducing a player's projected ceiling is not a good way—in my opinion— to compensate for the fact that the player may not meet that potential. Monahan may not become the next Eric Staal or even the next Jonathan Toews, but these are the players who STILL, AT THIS POINT appear to be the best comparables when gauging his style of play and future as an NHL player. Regardless of whether the Flames drafted Lindholm or Horvat, that does not in any way change the fact that their potential is still the same as it was at the draft. I don't see (most) people changing their projections for Monahan simply because he was drafted by the Flames; people are just understandably more excited about the fact that he is now Flames property.

Originally Posted by kehatch

...I am saying this will take a bit. Take enjoyment out of the development and prospects. But the high fives are premature and some are setting themselves up for a rocky January.

Seriously? I don't see anyone posting in this thread who would not readily agree with the first two sentences. The fact today is that the Flames have the most talented prospect base that they have seen in at least the last decade. The fact is that there was A LOT to get excited about in the development camp. But I honestly don't see the "high-fives" of which you speak as in any way problematic. People are excited for good reason. It's true that there is a good chance things won't pan out as we all hope, but that is no reason to temper people's enjoyment now. The bottom line in this discussion is that future looks pretty bright right now, compared to a couple of years ago, and that is great news.

[Poe969]

Monahan will be the best player ever!

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I am saying this will take a bit. Take enjoyment out of the development and prospects. But the high fives are premature and some are setting themselves up for a rocky January.

Just my opinion.

I am not too sure what you mean to say with the bolded above. I don't think anyone is assuming this team will be successful this upcoming season. I haven't read any posts here with posters hoping for playoffs or anything. Most posters feel this is going to be a bottom 3 team from what I see.

Or are you implying that the luster from watching prospects will wear-off by January? The luster of watching what I always considered an under-achieving team going through the motions wore off by January as well in the last few seasons - looking forward to at least watching a team with heart on the ice again, even if the results are worse.

[MissTeeks]

Berra in the Hot Seat during camp:

[Max Cow Disease]

"Now I go back to Switzerland and eat a little bit cheese. Then I coming back and I can't wait."

No nonsense with Reto. Let the goalie competitions begin!

[Flamette]

Didn't see this posted anywhere...

Calgary Flames @NHLFlames
Johnny Hockey! @johngaudreau03 helped out at the @HartleyHockey camp today pic.twitter.com/1v7GSJfSaP

Nice to see him helping out his future coach!

[Delthefunky]

He's a giant out there.