robrob74

April 12

8 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Great post. Kerins is freshly 21, Stromgren will be in a couple of months.

Both are still solid prospects. The Ronni thing reeaally sucked.

I think most picks are considered 3-5 yrs out, so good to see progress.

Zary's a good example. Can call it 3 years, but drafted as an overager if you Satoshi Nakamoto on the NHL eligibility rule, as I do. So I'd count it into his 4th yr of when he should have been eligible.

I'm all for pushing it back a year for ALL 2005's this year and onwards. Next year is 2006's. My opinion, but it's pretty Blockchaining low to exclude kids from their age group. Only in the NHL. "All about inclusion". lol Yeah, you missed one...ageism...

Oh, the ironing.

maybe with expansion looming they'll start include old guys again, creating job for aging vets.

April 12

11 hours ago, conundrumed said:

These, "ambitions", shall we call them, are reflected in the draft thread. If you'd just read it and post there, you'd find an audience. Zero need to start a new thread on what is already being discussed.

Welcome to the board!

thing about signing up to this site, I think they make newbies create a new topic post as a way to verify they're not a Bot.... maybe.

April 11

8 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

There is quite a bit of money in Utah, so it is a smart play for the league.

I also understand the idea of wanting to expand further in the US. The theory makes perfect sense. The issue though is that hockey isn’t a very financially inclusive sport. It’s so expansive. Just look at what equipment does for a at Pro Hockey Life. Tack on another 1500 bucks for minor hockey fees, minimum.

It’s never going to grow as much as soccer, baseball, basketball or football, because not everyone can afford to play. Which brings me back to 34-36 teams, there’s not enough NHL caliber players in the world to do that.

that depends though. Is hockey that much expensive in the States? I assume things are cheaper outside of Canada because you pay for the demand here. It's the Canada tax. Equipment might be expensive, but maybe the play and other parts of the game are cheaper? I wouldn't know... just spitballing...

April 11

25 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

That would be awesome to trade Andersson straight up to BUF for the 9th and we pick Tij.

if there's a need in Buffalo, I can't see why not... and could it be a possible destination for Marky in some way or another? Or is their goaltending ok?

are they like the murky area now where they need a few top up pieces?

the Flames '04 team came together nicely. Ville N. was a huge add, Gelinas a proven performer, Simon too, and Kipper as a huge add that year. Small moves but big impacts.

is there a move that can be had with Buffalo there? Maybe.

We should trade them Andersson, Markstrom and Mangiapane, or Kuzmenko. But we'd need some firsts for this year and next year. We'd retain on Mange, Marky, or Kuz... two firsts and a second for the three? Maybe a roster player lol... I dunno I feel like I'm lowballing ourselves though.

April 11

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

No way Andersson gets top 5 pick especially after you've been calling him average all season. He's worth a little more than what Hanifin got us due to RHS RD. DET could play Andersson on the 2nd pairing where he belongs and that's not top 5 pick material.

I personally think a 10-15th pick is possible depending on the right team.

I would say he's a bit more like a 7-12 range kind of player. And it might depend on the strength of draft where maybe in this one, one can argue for a higher pick.

April 11

44 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'd be needing a top 5. Teams picking top 5 don't care about right now. So I don't have a dance partner, and I'm definitely not trading him one-for-one after that. I can trade him elsewhere for a player, a solid prospect and a later pick. I don't glamourize top 15 draft picks regarding one of my best players.

you might have Montreal or Ottawa. It's possible any of the teams ahead of us would be willing to trade for him. They're a step our three ahead of the flames and possibly ready to compete soon. Ottawa alone expected to make some steps toward playoffs.

April 7

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

A lot of parallels to that draft, I feel.

The assist-heavy "D-strength". The general weakness. The Iginla. lol.

Obvious differences too. No Celebrini. I "like" to think this draft is a Little stronger but we really don't know that yet. I really do believe this draft has a few future legends in it. But it most likely doesn't have 10 legends in the top 10. It has like maybe 2.

History suggests we should tread carefully, and go for high, high skill. Put extra weight on intelligent players. And not too much weight on giants. I really would almost entirely ignore position, and make sure we are one of the teams that doesn't land one of the dudes, which there will be.

I think you can filter a lot of them right away by avoiding the top 10s who can't score goals (even in junior). There's an exception to every rule but Most of that group i feel will disappoint. Even if they do end up NHLers (which they most likely will).

Playoffs matter. Need to know who has an extra gear. Yell at them later for not using it in the regular season. Unfortunately this is why Tij may actually be out of our reach, unless we literally lose every game going forward or win the lotto and downgrade.

when I went through the selections by round in Wikipedia that draft looks pretty ok. It has decent players throughout. Kipper was drafted. We had two of the best goalies of that draft too, Kipper and Giguere...

M. Savard was in a later round as well. Not a bad one, and I think orgs were just starting to realize the importance of scouting as the Cap happened after it. So I think back then it was normal to find gems later...

im with you on trying to go for the Skill and not go for a guy just because he's big.

April 7

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Tij is a late bloomers/riser like his dad. Good trajectory for him to be on.

Iginla's draft wasn't that deep. Some good players but not very deep.

In a redraft looks like he'd go first overall. Giguere might be the closest to 2nd overall.

I don't see another star player besides Shane Doan, and for me he's just an extremely good loyal player. Although, he might have had the same thing as Iginla, not really building a quality team around him. he might have been better than Iggy but more the all-round game.

Redden, Berard, etc were really good players, but not stars...

April 7

The Flames should have traded Marky. CanThe play of late lower his value?

April 6

Just now, travel_dude said:

What Huska said about Zary is appropriate. He said young guys don't deserve to play if they aren't playing at their best. He quoted Weegar's comments about showing up. The only issue I have with that is that some of the vets are in that boat but never get sat. Zary maybe deserved to sit, though I thought he was no worse than his linemates that last game.

I agree with that. They need to hold everyone to that standard. While he called out vets, I think it means more if vets get sat too.

April 6

For what was expected to be a "deep draft" in 2023, one where no one was trading first rounders, was the first rounder one we should have taken, without hindsight? Not knocking Honzek, just asking if maybe we might have needed a different approach to the depth.

and can last year or the few years before's approaches hint at what to expect this year? Is it good, bad, exciting, worrisome?

Many on this site seem to have their wishlist, and many are writing Santa.

I was worried Honzek was a reach, and maybe needs a bit of time to grow into himself. I hope he becomes an NHLer. I get wanted a player of his stature and possible power, which makes it all that harder to read an 18yr old.

April 6

The problem with taking guys off lines they've had most success on is they might not replicate it with other teammates...

April 5

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

So, the two slowest skares on CGY were both played in the NHL too early?

Monahan and Tkachuk.

Sorry, I don't think so.

Skating wasn't going to somehow get better playing in a slower league.

And when you are a certain type of player and you are assigned that role by the coach, whatevs.

I may lean that way with Bennett, but I think they failed to develop him in the NHL.

He was coming off an injury and they opted to play him in the playoffs.

Of course they keep him in the NHL after the way he played there.

It was the years following that the problems developed.

can skating only be worked on in the NHL though? Skating is something worked on outside the game, learning edge work and it's better to practice on players who aren't going to take their head off, and NHL isn't a full developing league... which I found they did with Monahan. I hated Monahan since his first year in the NHL.

Maybe it's bias, but I just couldn't get passed his skating.

April 4

4 hours ago, sak22 said:

I think an extra year for Monahan might have helped in some areas, but I don't think he naturally had the tools to be elite #1C, but it's not like elite players were passed up for him. Bennett did go back for another year, he just had the shoulder surgery which took him out for most of it, I don't think the coaching changes helped with him, but I don't think there was anything elite to work with there, just a reminder the top of the draft doesn't always produce elites.

I think Bennett had an extra year where he could have gone back, after the injury? I think a consensus was that he was now too good for JR and then after he was on the team they felt disrespectful to send him to the AHL, which was another thing they should have done. I might be getting that mixed up and that because he came back and played the playoffs and played it well, they wouldn't send him to the A.

Also, with Monahan, it might have been good to continue to develop his skating and defensive game. But he was kind of NHL ready. I remember seeing him and wondered how he could play, but Theo couldn't when he did the comeback thing. Monahan looked like he thought the game good, but his skating wasn't there.

April 4

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

basically imho this is about building out from the net. I mean not only that, but a few punk wingers can make you look a lot better than you are and won't be able to reproduce it in the playoffs when teams are serious.

those young punk forwards should be the last add, and when they are added they should be the very best of the best and be able to reproduce in playoffs, otherwise not much point to them.

while I agree, I think Johnny could be good, IF he had more around him. Him alone doesn't cut it and that's all the Flames had when they had him. Not the same but similar to the shortsightedness of trying to build around Iginla. The player was there, but nothing else other than Reggie.

the philosophy needs to change and we need some superstar picks.

im more in line with the goalie is important but not as important as the elite defender and center. But that doesn't mean the goalie is not a good goalie. Elliot looked great in a blues uniform. But we didn't have the same level of defenders the Blues had.

April 4

6 hours ago, sak22 said:

You also don't want good but not elite pieces rising too fast making the team better (ex. Monahan and Gaudreau), but not good enough to go all the way. The thing as I mentioned with Chicago earlier is all the solid depth guys were in the minors winning while the big team sucked allowing for a chance at Toews and Kane.

so basically, let guys develop even if they could be on par with NHL players? Like allowing Monahan an extra Jr year, not you saying that.... and Benny too. Tkachuk was good to play with Backs... but ya.

April 3

Never bet for or against this team, you can't figure out what you'll get...

April 3

Shouldn't they be playing Wolf? I guess Coach has learned from Sutter-ism.

April 2

13 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Safe is the right approach when history shows that 12-15 provides a low % of elite. My example of 10 drafts and 4 players each draft I identified 2 as elite and I'd asterisk both of them, Karlsson had great years but sharp decline and injuries and Miller was a late bloomer. 2 out of 40 = a 5% chance of elite, for fun and the fact its a slow day, I'll do 25-28 in the same years.

2005: Cogliano, Pelech, Finley, Niskanen (No elites, but on average better than 12-15 that year)

2006: Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, N. Foligno (Nothing elite)

2007: White, Perron, Brendan Smith, Petreki (Nothing elite, Perron has some great older years)

2008: Nemicz, Ennis, Carlson, Tikhonov (Bad trend for the Flames picking that range for sure, Carlson is borderline)

2009: Caron, Palmeiri, Paradis, Olsen (Yuck)

2010: Howden, Kuzntsov, Visentin, Coyle (Couple good picks but nothing elite)

2011: Percy, Danault, Namestnikov, Phillips (2 solid and 2 duds)

2012: Schmaltz, Gaunce, Samuelsson, Skjei (Nothing good, but 12-15 was also awful and I'd say Skjei is the best)

2013: McCarron, Theodore, Dano, Klimchuk (More Flames grossness, but Theodore is up there)

2014: Pastrnak, Scherbak, Goldobin, Ho-Sang (No doubt 1 is elite)

2015: Roslovic, Juulsen, Larsson, Beauvillier (Nothing elite).

Yes not great, but the best player from those ranges is Pasta, by average you do get better players in the 12-15 range, but still important to say low probabilities for elite there. What did we do wrong the last time? Beaten to death theories, but Gaudreau shouldn't be viewed as elite (his production swung way too much over the years), Monahan wasn't elite, Bennett wasn't elite, and Tkachuk was on the verge of becoming just as he was on the verge of leaving. But the answer to solving previous problems is more picks in the non-elite range.

That might even prove drafting in the top 5 is imperative. There are some good players past that point for sure, but it gets rarer and rarer, and the problem with Gaudreau was some years he was elite and other years he wasn't, like you said, up and down, and maybe where our discussion the other day about whether Calgary has been a good team or not over the past years... It's in the inconsistencies of Johnny.

April 2

32 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I don't quite agree here. Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?

Quality is the first step in a rebuild. Get the new core first.

After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types. Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us. Not a sound plan.

People tend to quote the percentages and then when the percentages don't matter for the arguments, they say it's better to have quantity in having picks to hit on, like in a lottery system (Not the same as the draft lottery).

Speaking of the lottery. they should just give teams a certain amount of balls and everyone has a chance.

32nd - 16

31st - 15

30th - 14

29th - 13

28th - 12

27th - 11

26th - 10

25th - 9

24th - 8

23rd - 7

22nd - 6

21st - 5

20th - 4

19th - 3

18th - 2

17th - 1

Keep pulling until the draft order is finalized... IF they pull a team a 2nd time, just try again.

April 2

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

If there is a specific player available earlier that we know won't reach us, I can see offering a 3rd or later to move up, but we aren't talking about moving to the top 15.

What would we be able to trade to get an additional 1st? Markstrom holds the greatest value that we are willing to part with. Other than that, I don't see it.

I think the only way we receive a 1st this year is if the Flames trade their first for next year, IF Montreal doesn't take that one. And we'd have to have it free from lottery stipulations on it.

April 1

43 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I'm in agreement here, the reality is that we have completely gutted ourselves in this "retool".

And I'm not complaining.

Andersson is probably our last card. Or a combination of Andersson plus previous/future first rounders

-(Coronato, Zary)

You can do it, but you need to really want it. There would have to be pain. If you draft Tij, then imho you ...Have...to do something because we cannot start our rebuild with a bunch of wingers. Sorry I mean retool. If you don't draft Tij, it's optional but it would still be better to start fresh drafting D.

It is actually quite funny that we are calling this a retool when in fact we don't have enough pieces to trade for a first rounder anymore. But it's not a bad thing, it means we are near rock bottom and things aren't going to get That much worse. It's probably the last season for a while where our GM talks about "battling for the playoffs" in January, but otherwise pretty steady.

In a situation like this it Does make sense to go heavy on picks right away (if drafting D and G), so imho we should try our best to do so. Even if it means Putting up great pieces like mentioned above.

And we should be a seller at each trade deadline for next few seasons. Best way to do that is reclamation projects. Hello Kylington. Hello Kozemenko. We need to sign more Younger high ceiling reclaimation projects in the off-season, rehab them and see who sinks/swims. Put the swimmers up at TDL. Be up front about it. "Hey man, get your act together and you could be hoisting a cup by end of season".

Second best way is eating salaries, but I won't get my hopes up.

I just don't think we will ever be drafting low enough for it to be a rebuild. This year may be the lowest we draft in this iteration of a retool.

we need to make sure we hit on players in the way Dallas did... and get that first rounder right.

April 1

4 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Sorry a downer here!!!

I don't see ANYONE of our players worth a trade for a top 10 2024 pick.

im not thinking you're a downer. I think it'll be very hard, and my guess is bosn was thinking what to add to get there.

if they wanted more firsts the TDL is where to get them, not the draft.

April 1

34 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

If the Flames were to trade the following players / combos, I think they could get First round picks in the top 15 this season (from the right teams).

What teams should we target with each player prior to or on draft day?

Markstrom

Andersson

Mangiapane + (what would need to be added to get to that 1st?)

I would look at using prospects or later picks if it helps move Mange for a top 15 pick in the draft. Are Coronato, Poirier, Honzek, Stromgren going to be made available? Would they be enough?

Looking for input as I would love to speed up the rebuild by getting 4 top 15 picks in a single draft. Would that be a new record?

What about Markstrom and a 2024 2nd rounder for their 1st Rounder? Is that enough? They get "their guy" and a pick in this year's draft. Is Holtz part of the deal or enough 1-to-1? He's NHL ready with warts. Conroy loves NHL ready players.

If I was GM I would trade Andersson and Mangiapane (50% retained) to Ottawa for a 2024 1st rounder and a 2024 4th round pick and a 2025 3rd round pick. It wouldn't be Ottawa's 1st rounder. Could we add Pelletier to make it their 1st? Maybe minus a later pick?

March 31

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Sure but both ANA and SJS are 1-8-1 in their last 10. "Easy" to predict in that case. 4 wins right there. No way we finish the season with only 2 or 3 more wins the rest of the way like we need.

Hope they see a team that's ripe for the pickin' and we get ahead of ourselves. If Anaheim has speedy guys going then could be trouble. Sounds like they might have given the Canucks a run today but lost.

my bet is we lose to one of them once or twice but beat a team in it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Videos

Events

Gallery

Posts posted by robrob74