Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 02-18-2014, 12:48 AM   #21
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe View Post
It is arguable that Edmonton needs a center as badly as they need a defencemen. Edmonton picking two is still sitting really pretty, unfortunately. However, though Reinhart is not small (6'1"), they really need a big center since their top 6 is tiny. Draisaitl would be a great selection for them if they find themselves jumping up in the standings.
Edmonton has huge needs all over the place. They need an Ekblad. But at the same time they need a Reinhart/Bennett type. But at the same time they also need a big potential powerforward and one of Draisaitl, Ritchie, Perlini and Dal Colle might be that type of player.

The Flames meanwhile IMO need a powerforward or a franchise d-man more than we need a centre. But of course I'd love to land Reinhart/Bennett anyways and move forward from there.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 01:43 AM   #22
saXon
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe View Post
It is arguable that Edmonton needs a center as badly as they need a defencemen. Edmonton picking two is still sitting really pretty, unfortunately. However, though Reinhart is not small (6'1"), they really need a big center since their top 6 is tiny. Draisaitl would be a great selection for them if they find themselves jumping up in the standings.
This is true. However, I believe MacT was on record mentioning Ekblad's name as the 'book end to Nurse' or something along those lines. Seeing Ekblad go to any team other than Edmonton would be another treat on draft day.

Edmonton is in a good position draft wise, but at the cost of their on ice product, and their pissed off fanbase.

Any one of the bottom 5 positions can rapidly change after the Olympics. Trade deadline is coming and should throw a wrench or two into the standings. Should be fun to see the final order of the bottom 5 teams fall into place.

Last edited by saXon; 02-18-2014 at 01:46 AM.
saXon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:29 AM   #23
dammage79
Franchise Player
 
dammage79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

And I don't think the Oilers are going to be traditional sellers come deadline day either. Even though they are the perpetual owners of a top pick every darned year. Thay are actually trying to build as well. If anything I could see them being buyers or do nothing at all come deadline day.

Once Calgary, Florida sell off what they can. I think the Oil jump past both clubs before the season ends.
__________________
"Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
dammage79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 09:16 AM   #24
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79 View Post
And I don't think the Oilers are going to be traditional sellers come deadline day either.
I do. They're not going to trade their bevy of former #1 overalls + Eberle but I'd be surprised if they didn't trade Hemsky & Smyth for futures. That being said those guys are their depth so I don't imagine they'll get back much meaningful for them.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 09:21 AM   #25
ForeverFlameFan
Franchise Player
 
ForeverFlameFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
Buffalo won't draft another D prospect, their need is a forward, and my guess would be Bennett over Reinhart.
Well if that's the case, then maybe Buffalo would possibly trade their first round pick to us. I know I have heard a lot of trading scenarios for the first pick, but what ideally would Buffalo want from us for us to obtain the first pick? What is it that they need? C's, LWer's? It's a weaker draft than last year, and I think we should be willing to give a couple prospects that we don't see in our future.
ForeverFlameFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 10:47 AM   #26
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan View Post
Well if that's the case, then maybe Buffalo would possibly trade their first round pick to us. I know I have heard a lot of trading scenarios for the first pick, but what ideally would Buffalo want from us for us to obtain the first pick? What is it that they need? C's, LWer's? It's a weaker draft than last year, and I think we should be willing to give a couple prospects that we don't see in our future.
Getting Buffalo's first is what has been discussed for the last couple of months. My guess is if we can get another 1st say for Cammalleri, that and our 1st might swing it. I'd think we would need to be no lower than 3rd in draft order for Buffalo to bite though.

I don't see them wanting any of our prospects but hey, they could have whatever they want for their first. Straight up, I'd give them Gaudreau and Granlund for their first, if we could keep our first. I wouldn't do anything until after the order is finalized and we are assured of getting Ekblad.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 10:54 AM   #27
ForeverFlameFan
Franchise Player
 
ForeverFlameFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Getting Buffalo's first is what has been discussed for the last couple of months. My guess is if we can get another 1st say for Cammalleri, that and our 1st might swing it. I'd think we would need to be no lower than 3rd in draft order for Buffalo to bite though.

I don't see them wanting any of our prospects but hey, they could have whatever they want for their first. Straight up, I'd give them Gaudreau and Granlund for their first, if we could keep our first. I wouldn't do anything until after the order is finalized and we are assured of getting Ekblad.
I may in the minority, but I'd be fine without taking Ekblad. I'd rather take Draisatil/Bennett/Reinhart (in no particular order), and to try and get Fleury. However, Ekblad to be projected as the first overall pick and being a defense man is promising. They turn out well. Won't be surprised if Burke goes after him.

Giving them Gaudreau and Granlund is a no no, I want those prospects.
ForeverFlameFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:00 PM   #28
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef View Post
Teams draft the BPA, not based on need. If they end up with too many defensemen they can
trade one down the line.
I'll bet you a $20.00 donation to CP that Buffalo doesn't draft a D if they get the first pick.
T@T is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2014, 02:13 PM   #29
OutOfTheCube
Franchise Player
 
OutOfTheCube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Straight up, I'd give them Gaudreau and Granlund for their first, if we could keep our first.
You really think two somewhat promising but completely unproven prospects would get the first overall pick, straight up?

The value of the first overall pick (before it's picked) is gigantic, even without a Crosby or Tavares or McDavid at the top.
OutOfTheCube is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:14 PM   #30
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
I'll bet you a $20.00 donation to CP that Buffalo doesn't draft a D if they get the first pick.
Which I agree with and gives Ekblad to Edmonton, so if we want Ekblad we need to deal with Buffalo.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:22 PM   #31
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube View Post
You really think two somewhat promising but completely unproven prospects would get the first overall pick, straight up?

The value of the first overall pick (before it's picked) is gigantic, even without a Crosby or Tavares or McDavid at the top.
I don't know what they'd want that's why I said, I'd give them anything they'd want, and so named probably our two most promising prospects as an example. Probably anything more would put us out of the running. A more likely scenario would be our first + for their first while they still get the forward they want.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:27 PM   #32
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
I don't know what they'd want that's why I said, I'd give them anything they'd want, and so named probably our two most promising prospects as an example. Probably anything more would put us out of the running. A more likely scenario would be our first + for their first while they still get the forward they want.
Something realistic might be if we acquire another 1st at the trade deadline then you could attempt to ship both 1sts and a prospect to BUF for the #1.

As it stands now though BUF only has a 25% chance of retaining the pick so they are actually not likely to be drafting #1. They are very likely to be drafting #2. Whichever team wins the lottery will likely take Ekblad leaving BUF their choice of Bennett/Reinhart.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 04:13 PM   #33
Alberta_Beef
Franchise Player
 
Alberta_Beef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
I'll bet you a $20.00 donation to CP that Buffalo doesn't draft a D if they get the first pick.
No thanks, I don't gamble. I just think it's stupid you refuse to accept that it is not out of the realm of possibility.
Alberta_Beef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 04:40 PM   #34
Ashasx
Franchise Player
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

The window to capitalize on ELCs of high draft picks is very small and I think GMs are coming to realize this with the failure of the Oilers. People just said if the team needed defence, they'd trade Eberle or Yakupov for one... but both have severely diminished value now.

I think teams will still place the greatest emphasis on picking the best player, but I think organizational need will play a big role on which player they choose.

Even if Ekblad is a better hockey player than Reinhart, I think Buffalo picks Reinhart.
Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 07:33 PM   #35
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef View Post
No thanks, I don't gamble. I just think it's stupid you refuse to accept that it is not out of the realm of possibility.
If there was a slam dunk #1 this year I would agree, but as it stands any of 3 players so far could be #1. With this is mind it would be "stupid" not to think of organizational needs.
T@T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 07:34 PM   #36
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Which I agree with and gives Ekblad to Edmonton, so if we want Ekblad we need to deal with Buffalo.
Maybe, but lets wait an see where the Coilers pick.
T@T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:53 AM   #37
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
If there was a slam dunk #1 this year I would agree, but as it stands any of 3 players so far could be #1. With this is mind it would be "stupid" not to think of organizational needs.
8 out of 10 scouts Bobby Mac has talked to now have Ekblad #1. This after only a few of them had him #1 last summer.

He may not be a slam dunk yet but he is heavily favoured. Really it comes down more to the Buffalo scouts. If they fall in love with Ekblad then they wouldn't pass on him. You don't usually take a player you rank lower just because he fits your current needs slightly better.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:55 AM   #38
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T View Post
Maybe, but lets wait an see where the Coilers pick.
Let's see where everybody picks. Blows my mind how many people are already pencilling in the Sabres at #1 and Oilers at #2. With the new draft lottery the Sabres are more likely to be bumped down to #2 and the Oilers aren't likely to be drafting higher than 3rd. Whoever wins the lottery will probably take Ekblad.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
T@T
Old 02-19-2014, 01:19 AM   #39
Calgary4LIfe
Franchise Player
 
Calgary4LIfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
8 out of 10 scouts Bobby Mac has talked to now have Ekblad #1. This after only a few of them had him #1 last summer.

He may not be a slam dunk yet but he is heavily favoured. Really it comes down more to the Buffalo scouts. If they fall in love with Ekblad then they wouldn't pass on him. You don't usually take a player you rank lower just because he fits your current needs slightly better.
What were Bobby Mac's numbers with Jones as the season progressed? I can't remember if he had that much of a majority vote over MacKinnon. Ended up dropping down to 4th.

The draft is sometimes funny that way. Even with the 'feel good' story and history of Jones in Colorado (and being ridiculously short of quality D-men on the team and int he pipeline), they opted for MacKinnon, and it doesn't seem like the wrong choice at all.

Florida, even though they have a relatively deep center prospect pool, decided to go for Barkov next rather than Jones.

Tampa was more surprising to me, even though the media portrayed Drouin as the "St. Louis replacement". I thought for sure they were going to be picking Jones, as they were (and are) relatively light on D.

Nashville (who is a fairly deep team on D, even after losing Suter) selects Jones (and rightfully so).

I personally would never have predicted that the draft would turn out that way at all, though I can't argue that any of them were 'bad'. I believe that Reinhart will still get picked ahead of Ekblad this draft, unless Edmonton wins the lottery. They have to be perhaps the only team in the lottery stage that has to seriously look at organizational needs (#1 Defencemen, #2 Center with size, top-line winger with size, goalie prospects - in that order I think). Reinhart and Bennet would both be good, but they probably 'need' a guy like Draisatl more.

It almost feels that teams are now either a bit gun-shy about selecting a defencemen so early, or they feel a forward is indeed more 'value'. I think a defencemen has to be substantially better than the next forward in order to be drafted #1, and I don't think Ekblad is that far ahead of Reinhart, if at all (except once again, to Edmonton, whom I am sure would love and need both. Ekblad just fills a more pressing organizational need).
Calgary4LIfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 02:21 AM   #40
TjRhythmic
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Exp:
Default

Burke saying that a new GM won't be in place till after the draft I can see him swinging a deal to get Ekblad. He likes his big defensmen, and Ekblad has the potential to be that franchise d man he likes to have on all of his teams.
TjRhythmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021