BobbyB12 Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 Monahan Pulock / Gauthier Morrissey / Bowey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
403Loyalty Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 I corrected myself on the goalies, but you must have started replying before I edited it, sorry about that. To be fair on Krahn, it was knee injuries which derailed him: he may have become as good as he was projected to be if not for them. I agree that goalies are more of a crap shoot/need a different development path, but I can also pull out players names who were taken later and turned out just as good as the goalies you mentioned: webber, datsyuk, Theo Fleury, etc. and then you have top picks that fizzle such as Daigle. I think the main different between goalies and skaters is that scouts have not figured out how to project goalies as well as they do skaters. 20 years ago skaters were much less projectable then they are now, so perhaps in 10 years goalies and skaters will have similar probabilities dependent on their rounds. Neither are a perfect science. That said, I think you take BPA, and part of that "formula" should include the probability of success. I think that Fucale is a top tier talent who, when I include the higher risk of failure IS at the top of my list at 28th and should be mentioned in the discussion at 22 based on who I anticipate being available. Is he more likely to be a bust then Gauthier for example? For sure, but at the same time, Fucale projects to be a #1 goalie, potentially a franchise guy, Gauthier projects to be a 3rd line guy, maybe 2nd if the stars line up. And a big part of what people like about Gauthier is his size, yet he doesn't play overly physically. think about how many people lambasted JayBo for that. Which pick is better? its a judgement call and there is not a right or wrong answer. To distill my argument using hockey's future's ratings; All else equal, if you are comparing two players, and A has a 10% chance of becoming a "9", and a 40% chance of becoming a "7", and a 50% chance of never making the show, or B who has a 50% chance of becoming a "6", and a 20% chance of becoming a "5" with a 30% chance of never making it, which should you take? the simple multiplication suggests you should take B. (expected value of 3.7 and 4 respectively), yet myself I would probably take A since the risk is worth the reward in my mind. Its the same argument as last year with Janko (boom-bust potential all star) or Maatta ("safe" 3-4 defender). Neither side is necessarily wrong or right. I see where your coming from here, but the logic is a bit aloof. Sorry if this looks like im picking your comment apart but im just responding in order For goalie projections over forward projections it really is what is the trend and what is the knowledge we have. Scouts can see how player A fits in a system plays without a puck etc but for a goaltender while he shows athleticism/positioning/hand eye/ etc a lot of a goaltenders game is mental which is why to predict if goalie A will be a top goaltender just due to how he handles pressure etc. Which is why you season a goaltender in the minors with a few appearances in the big league. The only way this changes is how we build our goal tending from our youth. So till then with a top pick you take a forward with a better chance of making the NHL and even if he only becomes a boarderline 3rd/2nd liner you still have a cog to trade with value. Let me ask you how much value do you think Irving has? And just because i saw a flaw in your numbers "A has a 10% chance of becoming a "9", and a 40% chance of becoming a "7", and a 50% chance of never making the show, or B who has a 50% chance of becoming a "6", and a 20% chance of becoming a "5" with a 30% chance of never making it, which should you take?" I would take player A because he has a 50% chance of being a "7" as you rate while player B has a 70% chance of being a 6-5 rating. So player A is a safer bet but not only safer a better bet. Just because a player has the percentage of being a bust does not strongly out weight the potential ceiling of that player. [EDIT] Just realized Martin Brodeur's son Jeremy is eligible for the draft this year.... with one of our later picks I would gamble with that bloodline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 I think you may be mixing up the visible symptom and the underlying problem. By your logic: The Flames have picked 4 goalies in the first round to my knowledge, Kidd, Krahn, Muzzatti and Irving. The flames have picked 6th twice, Fata and Tkaczuk. I think it is safe to say Kidd had the best career, Muzzatti/Tkaczuk had arguably equal careers and Irving/Krahn/Fata are arguably a wash. (Had Tkaczuk not gotten a concussion his first year things may have turned out differently, he was on pace for a pretty good rookie season through 19 games. Krahn is another one that injuries likely changed everything.) With previous 6th overall picks the flames have always picked a skater (forward), and they have turned out to be busts. Therefore the flames should either trade down their 6th overall pick, (where they have had more success), trade all of their picks for previously drafted players, (where they have in the past 20 years had the most proven success) or pick Fucale or a D 6th (since they have not tried before) since: If the flames took Fucale with 28th overall I would be ecstatic, but I seriously doubt he is still there. He is even on my list at 22, I just think there are other guys I want there more who will still likely be around. Calgary picked Cory Stillman with the 6th pick in 1992, I wouldn't call that one a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatch Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 Hey, this isn't a debate thread! Just say who you are going to pick. IT's the rules of the game, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokernHockey Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 I see where your coming from here, but the logic is a bit aloof. Sorry if this looks like im picking your comment apart but im just responding in order No apology necessary, its a good way to lay out a point For goalie projections over forward projections it really is what is the trend and what is the knowledge we have. Scouts can see how player A fits in a system plays without a puck etc but for a goaltender while he shows athleticism/positioning/hand eye/ etc a lot of a goaltenders game is mental which is why to predict if goalie A will be a top goaltender just due to how he handles pressure etc. Which is why you season a goaltender in the minors with a few appearances in the big league. The only way this changes is how we build our goal tending from our youth. So till then with a top pick you take a forward with a better chance of making the NHL and even if he only becomes a boarderline 3rd/2nd liner you still have a cog to trade with value. Let me ask you how much value do you think Irving has? Ok, lets exagerate my previous example: player A has a 10% chance to become a 10, and a 90% chance of becoming a 0. player B has a 100% chance of becoming a 5-6. Clearly player B is on "average" going to be better. Its completely subjective as to when the "reward" becomes worth the "risk:. Personally, especially in the late first round I think considering the position the flames are currently in they need to heavily lean towards the higher risk higher reward players. The only way a guy who is projected to have a legitimate shot at becoming the best of the draft is if he is not expected to get there. Your right, the mental aspect is harder to judge then physical attributes, and is therefore more risky. And then you also need to throw in dumb luck for the opportunities the goalie is given. If Patrick Roy let in 9 goals before being pulled in his first game rather then his 551 after he was established instead of a trade to Colorado he would probably have never gotten another shot in the show. It probably had a better chance of happening in the first game of his career then in after he would have been more comfortable in the league. Still you can account for the extra riskiness when you create your prospect order. And just because i saw a flaw in your numbers "A has a 10% chance of becoming a "9", and a 40% chance of becoming a "7", and a 50% chance of never making the show, or B who has a 50% chance of becoming a "6", and a 20% chance of becoming a "5" with a 30% chance of never making it, which should you take?" I would take player A because he has a 50% chance of being a "7" as you rate while player B has a 70% chance of being a 6-5 rating. So player A is a safer bet but not only safer a better bet. Just because a player has the percentage of being a bust does not strongly out weight the potential ceiling of that player. I think that this highlights my point about the subjectivity of the subject. My "formula was (0.1*9)+(0.4*7)+(0*0) since in my mind a first round pick either makes it to the show or he doesn't. Nobody gave the flames and "points" for drafting Fata due to his outstanding AHL career. you either ignored or assigned some higher number to the "not in the nhl" portion if your saying 50% NHLer is "safer" then 70% NHLer. Your last sentence is the essence of my post, and argument in favor of Fucale, although with a ton more variables, many of which cannot be quanified. Calgary picked Cory Stillman with the 6th pick in 1992, I wouldn't call that one a bust. Touche'. Remind me never to play trivia with you guys. Its not fair when people have the knowledge to fact check!! Hey, this isn't a debate thread! Just say who you are going to pick. IT's the rules of the game, man! SORRY!!!!!!!! *runs and stands in the corner facing the wall out of shame* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gossypol Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 Plan:ASean Monahan ©/William Carrier (LW)/Curtis Lazar (C/RW) Plan:BValeri Nichushkin (RW)/Nikita Zadorov (D)/Curtis Lazar (C/RW) Plan:CElias Lindholm ©/William Carrier (LW)/Joshua Morrissey (D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 6 - Sean Monahan 22 - Kerby Rychel 28 - Ian McCoshen / Josh Morrissey I'm not saying all of them would be my picks, it's just what I think Feaster will do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 If we keep the picks:#6 - Nurse or Monahan #22 - if still available (& I doubt it) Pulock. This kid has the type of character we saw with Iggy. If N/A the best center left on the board if we took Nurse. #28 - BPA. We know teams always go off the board in every draft so there might be a much higher rated player sitting there. ********************************************** If we get Nurse & Pulock with our 1st 2 picks we have defense for years to come & less worries about our goalie situation. You can never have too many centers or defensemen. With compliance buyouts there are centers available as UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordxan Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 OK,here is what my long shot prediction is: 1. feaster flips 22nd and Gio to Car for 5th 2. Feaster picks Monahan with the 5th overall 3. Feaster picks Lindholm with the 6th overall pick 4. Feaster then trades up the 28th overall pick + Backlund to get Hagg + a 2nd rounder Again a long shot but non the less possible and would be the Best case situation for the 2013 draft for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymo Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 6. Most likely Monahan. My preference is Lindholm. Sneaky outsider is Domi! 22. Zykov 28. Hagg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrippinVdUb Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 I don't think it's a matter of who we get anymore but what we get.... There are 3 choices 1) excitement and hope for the future, finally the flames look to have a full cupboard of good prospects to lead us into the new era... 2) meh 3) we burn down the dome! Good luck everyone, lets all hope for the first choice...... Traffic to the dome today maybe hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2013 Well this was fun.. I was 0 for 3 lol seems at the end of the day Monahan was expected..Poirer was off everybodys radar and klimchuk wasnt a complete surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.