[PGT] Sharks 7 Flames 4

[Bingo]

Sorry I didn't have a game story ...

was at provincials with my daughter and had no way of seeing the game. Sounds like I didn't miss much!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sorry I didn't have a game story ...

was at provincials with my daughter and had no way of seeing the game. Sounds like I didn't miss much!

you missed the dagger pretty much

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It's fine if you like the trade. But don't revise history. Many posters, including myself, called it that very day: it was an overpayment.

IMO, the problem with your post is that it was not an overpayment and I recall multiple posters breaking down the trade as a comparison to other similar deals to prove exactly that. I get nobody likes losing first round picks but I also get the fact that a pick at 20+ may not crack the lineup for 2-3 years. Ill take immediate help today over someone who enters the league as our core is finishing up their contracts. I know what an average team feels like, we in Calgary have experienced it for too long. Tre tried to take things to the next level and by all accounts, did so from his end.

Would you consider it an overpayment if that 1st rd pick was a 23rd overall pick this year who doesn't play in the league for a couple years and is never a top 6 fwd?

What if Hamonic goes on to have 3 amazing years under a different coach?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Thanks, FW - I was too lazy to write that. We had/won this argument nigh 10 years ago - I should try to cut & paste the posts from back then...

I had no idea this argument was "won" 10 years ago. Foolish me for responding to a post with an opinion.

I certainly did not say that games played is the only determining factor in success of a pick, but the odds of that pick being a top 4 def. or top 6 forward are very relevant, in my opinion.

I am not sure if this is what Flash is saying, but I don't necessarily agree that trading known players is better than trading unknown players, which of course are picks.

Take the most ridiculous example: The Brett Hull trade.
What if that trade were Calgary's 1st overall in 1988 instead of Hull? Would we be lamenting the trading of a pick that became Jason Muzatti (21st overall = last in the 1st round)? The first few 2nd rounders that year were no great shakes either.
Yes, that is a ridiculous example, and who knows if it was an option, but picks and players are both currencies to use, and you can be content to trade one but not the other at particular times in your progression, based upon how immediate you believe your need is.

I.e. If you are somewhat content with your 3-5 year horizon, you might lean more to trading picks, as that is (huge over-generalisation) when mid 1st-round and later picks mature. If you are happy with your immediate team, and have players knocking down the door now, then you trade some of those players and keep picks for the future. I, and I think most of us, anticipate this is what the Flames will do with what seems to be a glut of young defensemen - possibly even resulting in Brodie being moved.

Also, another minor quibble, and I appreciate Flash was most likely being hyperbolic, but no, not every team has a player better than Janko from the 2012 draft. Certainly many do, but not all.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I had no idea this argument was "won" 10 years ago. Foolish me for responding to a post with an opinion.

I certainly did not say that games played is the only determining factor in success of a pick, but the odds of that pick being a top 4 def. or top 6 forward are very relevant, in my opinion.

As criteria this literally doesn't matter. Why ever draft in the 4th or 5th round if the chances of landing jamie benn or johnny gaudreau isn't high? Why draft at all? Because getting Pavel Datsyuk in the 7th round can quite literally change the entire fortunes of your roster for more than 10 years.

Do the Flames have some kind of track record to illustrate their way of doing business makes them more competitive than the rest of the league, or is their track record actually illustrative that the team has basically been garbage since one of the team's prominent owners bought his stake in the organization?

I am not sure if this is what Flash is saying, but I don't necessarily agree that trading known players is better than trading unknown players, which of course are picks.

I don't know what this means, so it's probably not what i'm saying.

I.e. If you are somewhat content with your 3-5 year horizon, you might lean more to trading picks, as that is (huge over-generalisation) when mid 1st-round and later picks mature. If you are happy with your immediate team, and have players knocking down the door now, then you trade some of those players and keep picks for the future. I, and I think most of us, anticipate this is what the Flames will do with what seems to be a glut of young defensemen - possibly even resulting in Brodie being moved.

This is probably where the flames are the worst of all. Identifying where they are at in the lifecycle of their team and core group. The team is only two years removed from one of their worst ever seasons. What on earth compelled them to think they should be moving this large a volume of high value draft picks? Why are they seemingly so consistently bad at pro-scouting? This must transcend general managers and scouting staffs.

Also, another minor quibble, and I appreciate Flash was most likely being hyperbolic, but no, not every team has a player better than Janko from the 2012 draft. Certainly many do, but not all.

Janko is 32nd in the league this year in points from his draft class. 33rd in points per game behind such heavyweights as Jujhar Khaira, Brock McGinn and Esa Lindell (a defender).

Points doesn't tell the whole story either. Janko is 51st in ice time per game for players from his draft class, just slightly ahead of Kulak, also from the same draft.

Anaheim: lindholm
Boston:
Buffalo: Jake McCabe, Grigorenko, Girgensons
Calgary: Janko, Kulak
Carolina: Brock McGinn, Slavin
Chicago: Hinostroza (dealt Teravainen)
Colorado:
Columbus: Anderson, Murray
Dallas: Faksa, Lindell, Devin Shore
Detroit: Frk, Athanasiou
Edmonton: Khaira
Florida: Matheson
LA: Pearson
Minnesota: Dumba
Montreal: Galchenyuk

etc etc etc. Go through the league if you want. You'll see the only teams without a player from that draft traded them away or lost them to college free agency.

It's wonderful that Janko has made the team and seems like he might be a depth player for the flames going forward, but what is seemingly a miracle for the flames is business as usual for the rest of the league.

[Hackey]

The life cycle of the team is the major issue. With how the team is constructed now you almost have to try and speed things up. You have players who are either aging or players who will be becoming free agents. Now that the team is semi competitive you have to also consider you likely won't be getting any easy picks. You've gotta really hit on your later picks and that is a really tough thing to do. You can find supplemental players but impact players are very difficult to find beyond the top 10-15. If you take that route you run the risk of them not panning out or panning out to late. So are you just wasting years of your core in that case? In my opinion Tre did the right thing trying to speed things up. Maybe he should have gone for a top 6 forward instead of a top 4 dman but maybe he tried and no one was available that made sense. If were going to concentrate on drafting we almost need to start the rebuild again. You really need to load up on youth at one time so they come up together because as soon as your team starts to become a middle of the pack team the draft becomes increasingly difficult to really push your team forward. Trades and signings are easier but expensive. Unfortunately I see this team being past the stage where we can rely on the draft to push us forward. Any players we're drafting now won't be impacting the team for years and by that time you have a lot of question marks around your core. We're at a difficult point because the organization isn't going to start another rebuild. We have to make a run for things with what we've got while we've got them. That may mean we have to mortgage the future a bit. Staying the course and being patient I think is just waiting out the clock and likely leads to mediocrity.