kehatch

That's your opinion based on your assessment of the prospects, not fact. Which you are welcome to. But when you say things like "Their first rounders, in particular, rarely exceed passable if anything" that doesn't sound like opinion. Especially when you appear to be referring to the last three drafts. We won't know for a few years, but a lot of external reviews have Calgary ranked pretty well in the prospect department. Hockey Prospecting has us 5 this season. The hockey writers had us 20 last season, but that should jump up a bit with the performance of Wolf, your buddy Francis, and a solid 2021 draft. We would have been higher, but Valamki and Andersson were graduates. Most have us middle of the road, and that's about the best you can expect from a club not in an active rebuild. When your picking 16 to 20 range and not in a position to be sellers then your not going to have a top 5 system.

Which team is drafting core players with any sort of regularity with mid and late round picks?Since Treliving has arrived they have drafted Tkachuk, Valamki, Pelletier, Zary, and Coronota in the first. Outside of Tkachuk (who was a high pick and is a core guy) who got drafted in the range of any of the above players that is now a core member of another team. I am not asking who you wish they would have taken. But removing subjectivity who are these core guys your referring to? There aren't any. After Pelletier there is one guy who has played more then a handful of games. Nobody in Zarys draft outside of the top 10 have played any NHL games. Coronato was just drafted. There isn't anyone in the vicinity of Valamki that anyone would consider a core guy either.

Backlund was never projected to be a top line C any more then Zary is. Maybe some fans though he could be, but I don't think I have ever seen a C projected to be a top line guy that wasn't already projected to go top 5. If anyone honestly felt he was going to be a number 1 C he never would have fell to 24.

Every team in the NHL has their rankings. They don't always match TSN projections. The Flames are no different. And the Flames have drafted well over the last 5 years. Their ranking might be different then yours, but the results are there.

As a simple exercise I looked at all of the forward positions that scored at a full season PPG pace (56 or greater) Center: 10 qualified. 1 drafted outside of the top 10 (8 in top 3, 4 1OA). Only 2 were RH shots. RW: 4 qualified. 1 drafted outside of the top 10 LW: 6 qualified. 4 were drafted outside of the top 10 Finding a star outside of the top 10 is incredibly rare, finding a star C outside of the top 3 is even more rare, and finding a top RH shot C even in the top 3 is almost impossible. There are a few things I take from that: The Flames draft a lot of LWs in the first round because that is what is usually what is available for us when we pick. The odds are already long enough without passing on the best player available. Outside of the top 10, teams are looking for NHL players with their high value picks (1st and 2nd round), not necessarily NHL stars. You need some ELCs scattered throughout the line up when your playing in a cap system. The third and later rounds are where you have an opportunity to swing for the fences. Obviously I am oversimplifying and working off of a limited sample of data, but I think the tone is accurate. That is why guys like Pelletier and Zary are so valuable as prospects. They have a high chance of becoming functional NHLs that can play a middle 6 role, and there game is developed enough they will likely be contributing before their owed a big contract. That is also why a guy like Francis is worth getting excited about. I don't know if he plays 10 games in the NHL, but if he does work out maybe he can be our Brayden Point?

'Convention' is a review by a bunch of scouts, coaches, and GM that have watched these kids play hockey several times. They have spoken to them, given them fitness tests, talked to their coaches, and generally spend a lot of time and money in order to have an informed opinion. With do respect, what have you done to suggest your opinion over 'convention'? And as far as 'Convention' not having a good track record, based on what? The success of players drafted in the top 10 is much higher then players drafted 11 to 30, which is much higher then players drafted 31-60, which is much higher then players drafted after that. I would say convention has a great track record. As far as Francis goes, 50 points in 32 games is good output and it was a big jump from the year before. The fact that he saw his production increase following the trade helps answer the first big question surrounding him (can he drive a line, or is he benefiting from his teammates). I like Francis, and I hope he does well. But he was a fifth round pick for a reason, and he still has a lot of questions to answer (is he fast enough for his size, does his style of play transition to the NHL, etc). I hope he does well. Finding a RH C with good defensive play and a high work ethic isn't easy. He definitely has the potential to be a top 6 C, and that is great. Tough to rank him ahead of the first round picks though, at least in my opinion. For example, Lets look at Coronato. His offensive accomplishment last season was more exceptional (almost a goal a game, league leader by a long margin) and he also has a strong defensive game and work ethic, the ability to play wing or C, and is also a RH shot. But he doesn't have the speed concerns, he was clearly the driver on his line, and he is still on the small side but has a bigger frame then Francis. Pelletier may not have seen a big jump forward on a quick look at NHL DB, but he led his team by a wide margin and was a big factor in getting his team to the Finals. And yes, he may not have been an offensive juggernaut at the WJC, but he made Team Canada, played an important role, and wasn't a slouch offensively. I have a really hard time understanding how anyone would use the WJC as a knock against Pelletier, particularly in an effort to promote Francis. Zary managed to put up 7 points in 9 games in a brief AHL debut, and a lot of people were raving about how he looked doing it. He didn't take a big offensive jump in junior and that is a flag, but to be fair his team scored less. He has such a complete game I think he is almost certainly going to be an NHL player. We just have to see what the ceiling is. I am not saying Francis won't be a player. He might even be a star. In fact, I would suggest his star potential is higher then most of the other Flames prospects, he is just a longer shot to make the NHL IMO. I certainly don't have a problem with you circling him as the top player. But to be honest, your approach to be boosting Francis is a bit condescending to the other posters and prospects, and for no apparent reason. Francis took a big leap last season and is worth being excited about. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

Like Sak22 said, one of the reasons Treliving traded him to avoid having to expose him or another forward. In retrospect though, I think trading Bennett might have been a mistake. And not just because he went on a run in Florida. People point to the trade as the point when Bennett started producing. But he started before that with 6 points in 6 games when Sutter moved him up the line up. Its not the first time he went on a point streak in Calgary, especially late season, but given that we had just hired a new coach I think giving Sam another season to see how he did with Sutter would have made sense. I thought he was really coming along under Sutter, and Bennett himself said he was happy in Calgary with the coaching change. Sure, that would have put us in a situation where we would have decided to expose either Bennett or Dube. But I don't know if Seattle picks up Dube over Giordano anyway, and if they did we would still have Giordano. We did get two seconds (essentially). If we hit on one of them and/or if Treliving can translate the cap space from Giordano and Bennett to something impactful then we can call it all worked out. But if not, and Bennett keeps performing, we may be looking back on that trade in a not very happy way.

I would suggest that Flames drafting has been a strength under Treliving. Its tough to rate the last three drafts, but there are some interesting names outside of the first two rounds including Wolf, Poirier, and Francis. 2018 is also tough to judge since they didn't pick until the 4 round But Pospisil and Pettersen both have potential and have shown pretty well at the AHL level. But the other three full drafts until Treliving were strong. He got Andersson, Kylington, and Mangipane in 2015 despite not having a first and only picking 5 times. Getting a top 6 forward and at least one top 4 D in that scenario is great drafting. Tkachuk was a no brainer in 2016, but they also picked a Norris winner in the third. Dube was also drafted this year, and Phillips still has a chance to make the NHL (I think he is a long shot, but I guess we will see). Two NHL stars in one draft is a big win, though there are a few unfortunate misses in there as well. 2017 is interesting. The jury is still out on Valimaki. Pretty sure he will be an every day NHLer, but I could see him anywhere from a top pairing to bottom pairing guy. Other then that they only picked 4 more times, and it wasn't until the fourth. Compare that to before Treliving got here (I include 2014 since he had just arrived). Excluding our top 6 picks (Bennett and Monahan), we only hit once in the first round since the 05 lockout (Backlund in 2007). Our non first round picks were pretty underwhelming as well wiht the exception of Brodie and Gaudreau. There are a few depth guys scattered here and there, but otherwise that's it. To be fair, Ferland could have been good if not for injury, and some people like Kulak. But no matter how you slice it, we had more success in Trelivings first three drafts then we had in the previous eleven, and things look reasonably positive for the last three (again, excluding top 6 picks).

A list of players drafted 24 since Backlund: Mattias Tedenby/Marcus Johansson/Kevin Hayes/Matt Puempel/Malcolm Subban/Hunter Shinkaruk/Jared McCann/Travis Konecny/Max Jones/Kristian Vesalainen/Filip Johansson. Getting a 45 point C who is one of the better defensive players in the league at 24th is exceptional. Even take away his defensive ability and the situations he plays in. Getting a 45 point C late in the 1st is a win. But add that stuff back in and its a home run. Backlund has started in the defensive zone more often then any other Flames regular C over the past 5 seasons, its often against the other teams top lines, and he has still has the best possession numbers among Calgary Cs. He has often done it with limited line mates, and the line mates have all produced at a higher rate on his line then off. That includes recent guys like Tkachuk and Mangiapane. But it also includes guys like Bouma and Colborne that had career seasons playing next to him. The "Backlund Bump" is real. Over the last 5 seasons Backlund had 164 points even strength. Monahan had 195. To put that in perspective, every 11 games Monahan averaged 1 more point. That is with Backlund tasked with the defensive zone assignments and Monahan getting the offensive assignments. Funny enough, Backlund had 13 SH points over that time further narrowing the gap. Don't get me wrong, Monahan is the better offensive player. I also know, like every player, Backlund has his flaws. But he is disappointing because he isn't Patrice Bergeron? The Flames "killed all potential offensive output"? The guy has played almost 750 regular season games as a Flame, played the toughest minutes of any Flames forward, and he has done very well over that time. I have no idea why so many Flames fans crap on the guy.

I think hockey fans are a pretty smart and informed bunch. But we are also fans. We are limited in how much first hand exposure we have to players and prospects, and we don't have access to detailed pro and prospect scouting reports, video, experts, and all of the other things teams have to make their assessments. I remember most fans being a bit concerned re Brouwers contract along with his age and speed, but otherwise things were generally positive. The Neal pickup was taken pretty well overall, especially since it was a pretty active off season. Is that because fans aren't knowledgeable? No. We all knew the Flames were short on the right side, the contract was a small raise to his previous one, the guy was a proven goal scorer on four separate teams, and he was going to be playing on an offensive line.

They are only available to players in certain age ranges (35+ and rookies basically).

Sutter wasn't a good GM because he lacked a lot of what Treliving is good at. Treliving knows the market value of his players as well as the other teams players. He is constantly communicating across the league so he isn't surprised when a player is available, and other teams aren't surprised when one of his players is available. He is concerned about the long term impact of trading away futures or signing a long term deal. He is patient, and he isn't going to make a panic move for the sake of making a move. Treliving will never have a Hagman/Kotalik/JokinenX2/Phaneuf/Stajan/White/etc stretch. Treliving won't put us into a position where we are trading all of our futures while we are trying to win with a group of players well beyond their best before dates. But I think Sutter is a good influence on Treliving. He knows what types of players he needs on HIS team and I think he is advocating for those types of players.

It is because of the reasons above though. If Treliving was interested in building to an identity he wouldn't have spent half a decade trying to find a RW to compliment a top line that had neither the skill or style of play to fit the team he was supposedly trying to build. He wouldn't have been playing the top 4D and goalie roulette every season while leaving his mismatched forward core alone. He wouldn't have been hiring a different style of coach every other year, especially when half of them didn't have the experience or personality to instill an appropriate team culture.

I agree with you that Treliving is likely thinking 'Tampa Bay' when building the Flames. But I would suggest two things. First, I think a good GM (or coach for that matter) works with what he has. We may be chasing the Tampa identity, but they are a team that is built around star power with arguably the best goalie, best D, and best winger in the NHL. They are an offensive juggernaut and are deep at every position. They got that way with a bunch of top 5 picks, a heavy investment in drafting, and then followed it up with some savvy GM and development work. Second, his transactions haven't reflected him building that type of team. At least not to me. They have been about filling a positional need rather then acquiring a specific type of player. A series of transactions attempting to find a starting goalie (Elliott, Smith, Markstrom, Hiller, Ramo) A series of transactions attempting to find a top line RW (Frolik, Neal, Brouwer, Lindholm) A series of transactions attempting to add top 4 D (Hanafin, Hamilton, Hamonic, Tanev) A series of coaching hires (Gulutzun, Peters, Ward, Sutter) A bunch of depth moves I am not seeing a theme among the players and coaches he has hired, except repeated attempts to fill the same position. Further, our top forwards remain in tact and don't really fit the identity. I like Treliving. He doesn't lose to many trades, is great at managing the cap, has done a good job locking the core in at value, drafts well, and the times he has got into trouble he has managed to get himself out. But I don't think he has been able to construct a team with an identity. And I think that is reflected in how they play (how many times have fans/media had the conversation re what are the Calgary Flames?) If we are supposed to be a speed and possession team like Tampa, then he has failed at building it. It just feels different to me now. He has gone with a lunch pail coach which is a more realistic approach for our roster, and this summer has been focused on bringing on the kinds of players that complement that coach. It hasn't been huge yet, and it won't be until we see a core move or two, but I think its a step in that direction. Guess we will see.

I think you two are expecting too much. Backlund was never projected to be a P/PG type player. He is a top 50 point produce in the NHL (among Cs) and for a guy picked late in the first round that's a win. In terms of his draft, he is 13 overall in points. The only 3 Cs with more points were all top 10 picks, and of them only Couture is a guy anyone would take over Backlund. Backlund is a huge success offensively and defensively given where he was drafted. The term "killed all offensive output" isn't accurate.

Backlund is in the top 50 in scoring among Cs in the last 5 seasons, and his offensive production was on par with they last season. He does it with limited PP time and tough EV time. You can call him a third liner if you want, but his minutes, utilization, and production don't reflect that. As far as the Flames killing his production. He has been a mid 40 point layer virtually since breaking out, and is is at that mark every single season. How exactly did the Flames "kill" his offensive output? I do think there was a small drop off in his overall game last season. That is more to do with age then anything else. So I do think the term in his contract is mildly concerning. But I don't agree with your description.

I picture Treliving and Sutter in a board room together making a game plan for the off season. Treliving grabs a whiteboard marker and heads to the front. He writes a depth chart at each position that includes his depth in the minors. Next to each name is the Flames version of the WAR score, the contract term, and the cap. At the very bottom are the picks and prospects in the system, and he has lines shooting off to the right indicating the long term depth chart, cap, and futures situation. Once he has all of that he grabs the red marker and starts circling the positions where the team is weak, and a green marker where we have extra assets. Now he is ready to make his plan. Meanwhile Darryl is chanting the Sutter mumble and rocking back and forth in his chair. As soon as Treliving leaves the room he clears the board and starts from scratch. "Do I have a starter, okay. Who is this Vlader guy? No idea, whatever I will start Markstrom every night anyway. Let's look at the D. Who do I have clearing the crease and beating up the forwards? Who is moving the puck. Do I have Ca who can take the face offs and shut down the other team? Do I have enough forecheckers on the wing to send in the Sutter waves?" Meanwhile, his red marker is putting the names up that that includes guys that make too many mistakes, won't play D, won't work hard, etc. At no point is he putting up a depth chart and circling the RW (there aren't LW/RW anyway, just wingers). Z Treliving is interested in filling the top RW spot while projecting cap interest, Sutter is more interested in having the right types of players to compliment the identity of the team he wants. I get Tre has an identity in his head and I agree it's the Tampa mold. But his actions haven't shown that, nor had the type of players he acquires. But this off season there is absolutely a theme to his transactions, and it compliments his coaches style.

I think there is a decent chance Treliving gets a C. Eichel is a long shot, but the game changer. Dvorak is an option. But barring that Boazk would be a good target. Rumor is he is already signed though, just not announced.

I am glad to hear you are high on Werner. Its not that I am down on him, I just can't remember every seeing him play and a short look at the start sheet shows a guy with mediocre numbers and not a lot of games played per season. I still think they have to be thinking about a veteran. Outside of Markstrom they have 8 games played at the NHL level. That said, tough to find an NHL guy that will play in the AHL, and I think Vlader is their back-up, so you will likely be right.

Sutter's approach to building a team is simple. He wants his team to work harder then the other team, hit more then the other team, and be more committed to defense then the other team. The players he desires reflect that. That isn't to say he doesn't want skill players on the roster (he does) but they don't define the identity of his team. Treliving is more analytical. He is focused on filling a hole, acquiring depth, analyzing long term cap projections, balancing his futures, etc. When he does go after a player it is either a big ticket guy to plug a specific hole, its a depth guy, or its a potential future. What I am seeing for the first time from Treliving is he is acquiring players with an identity and culture in mind, and its focused on the type of game his coach wants to play. And I think that actually does move the needle. Coleman and Pitlick are good examples, but I think Lewis and Zadarov are as well. Change nothing, if the 2020/21 Flames worked harder then the other team while committing to a D first system, then we make the playoffs and potentially win a round or three. I think adding 4 (20% of the roster) players that are committed and you have a good start. Add a full camp with Sutter and maybe they come out with the identity the coach is looking for. I remain skeptical on the overall results though. Sutter's style revolves around G>D>C complimented by forechecking physical wingers. Maybe Markstrom rebounds, but our D is lacking at the top and bottom end, and our C is just meh. That said, if they can commit to Sutter hockey the team is going to be fun to watch and cheer for, and that at least will make the season worth watching.

I would rank both of those guys ahead of Coronato. Coronato was a mid round first in a pretty weak draft. It's easy to get hung up on the numbers, but he needs to translate it to pro. Pelletier isn't going to be a top offensive guy. But he has that two way game that makes him a valuable roster addition. Speed might hold him back, I guess we will see. I won't be shocked to see him play some NHL games this season.

Not sure what you mean by a plan B. If you mean there isn't an alternative to Eichel, agreed. But the Flames will use their cap space for something. Likely a depth RD. But I wouldn't rule out a pick up like Dvorak.

No, but then we haven't had many off seasons like this one. A combination of a shortened off season, flat cap, and Eichel holding things up suggests we will see some last season moves this year.

It's very possible Wolf will end up splitting starts and only get about half. But that will likely be related to performance, not the schedule. There are plenty of AHL goalies that get two thirds or more of the starts. Putting two prospects on the same team with the expectation of them splitting starts isn't a good idea in my opinion, and I can't find any examples of when a team did that with success (though again, they might be there but I just can't find them.) The template is giving the prospect (assuming they are performing) plenty of starts. Has something changed this season in the AHL that would suggest things should be different now?

I get the theory, but I don't agree in practice. Most of the top NHL goalies that grew up in the AHL got the bulk of the AHL starts. I also can't find many examples of two prospects being co developed on one team. They are probably out there, but in a light look I didn't find any. Kuemper is probably the closest. But that was a situation where he was getting 20 ish AHL starts a season behind a a higher ranked prospect. He is a bit of an exception in a lot of different ways, and not the template any team would use to develop future prospects. Parsons has had 4 seasons of pro now and his highest GP was 28. He has struggled with injury and hasn't been good in any of those seasons. I don't think the Flames pull the eject button yet, but the priority needs to be developing Wolf. Putting him in the AHL with Wolf is a mistake in my opinion. It disrupts Wolf's development, and it deprives Parsons of the one thing he really needs (consistent starts).