Official 2013 Nhl Draft Day Thread

[kehatch]

If they are going to shortlist, then they should go "all the way" and start drafting strictly based on positions, etc.   Don't draft the best player available.  Instead, draft the best player that would fit team needs.  There's no way they go that route and still come out of the draft with a LW and a LW/RW.  We need C, RW, and D.

 

Why is that?  One has nothing to do with the other.  They have their criteria and if you don't fit it you don't make the list.  That doesn't mean position has to be part of the criteria.  Weisbrod has character and hockey sense way up there.  I am sure they scratched off players with questionable character or hockey sense (for example).  

 

I am sure every team does it to some extent.  You can't scout 200+ players.  You have to narrow it down to some extent.  

 

Weisbrod works with Feaster/Button to build and rank the criteria.  They probably start the year with the scouts seeing as many players as they can and slowly start to whittle down to a manageable list (using the criteria) that they focus on for the latter part of the season.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  

 

The point being though that having Poirier as top 10 in a shortened list makes sense.  

[Kulstad]

That said, Poirier shouldn't be ranked 12th or higher.  That's just a mistake.  The Flames could've traded down a couple spots and picked up a second round pick and sitll drafted Poirier.

 

I'm not doing it for the past.  I'm doing it for the future.  If we're out of the playoff race and everyone's cheering for wins down the stretch.  I'm snapping again.

 

Just sayin.

 

Your first quote is absolutely doing it for the past; hookinging about something that is completely out of your control, something that we can't do anything about, and simply cannot be changed.

 

All I'm asking from you (and those who are sounding like you on these boards) is to change your way of thinking a little bit, and try to find some positivity in what we've got.  At the end of next season (hell, I'll even cut some slack and say between Christmas and New Year's) things seem like they've fallen off the rails as a direct result of who, what, and how we drafted (very key points there), then by all means feel free to snap.  I'll even hold the bullhorn for you so the front office workers can hear you.

[Flyerfan52]

Now that the draft is over, and we have who we have, will you please FINALLY stop bellyaching about "should haves" and "could haves" and "man, 2 more losses would have served us much better"?  Please?  Pretty please with sugar on top?  And this isn't just aimed at you...you just happen to be the biggest offender of this.

 

We have our picks.  We've made our bed.  There is no way to change who was picked, what position they were picked at, and who was available otherwise.  We, as a fanbase, need to get our collective support behind what we have, and start rebuilding ourselves, much like the team is rebuilding.

 

Sure, you might not like a certain player, but don't "not like him" just because of the draft position he was taken at...base it on performance, and I guarantee that no one here has seen all of our draft picks outside of YouTube videos.  For crying out loud, give the kids a chance to show what they have before you pigeon-hole them.  Training camp isn't until September.  Use the time between now and then to do background research on them, and make notes on what to look for when camp arrives.  You might just be pleasantly surprised by what you see in September.

 

We need to quit b-tching and moaning about what we should have done, and focus on what we can still do between now and October.

So true.

This is what we have @ the moment & are our Flames & their pipeline.

There are current roster players I wouldn't shed a tear for if traded but I'm not going to be down on 17/18 year olds that haven't even attended prospect camp yet. I'll admit the only 1 from this draft that excites me is Monahan but I really don't know that much about the others.

Most of us are showing patience with Sven's developement as we want him ready rather then being thrown into the hot seat because he's the big name in the pipeline (like Scheifele with the Jets). Let's show these kids the same courtesy. I'd rather have them fully developed @ 21 then burned out/ruined by 20.

[The_People1]

Why is that?  One has nothing to do with the other.  They have their criteria and if you don't fit it you don't make the list.  That doesn't mean position has to be part of the criteria.  Weisbrod has character and hockey sense way up there.  I am sure they scratched off players with questionable character or hockey sense (for example).  

 

I am sure every team does it to some extent.  You can't scout 200+ players.  You have to narrow it down to some extent.  

 

Weisbrod works with Feaster/Button to build and rank the criteria.  They probably start the year with the scouts seeing as many players as they can and slowly start to whittle down to a manageable list (using the criteria) that they focus on for the latter part of the season.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  

 

The point being though that having Poirier as top 10 in a shortened list makes sense.  

 

By shortlisting the way Button described, you're removing yourself from the opportunity to draft certain players who have high perceived trade value.  You're not maximizing the opportunity. 

 

If you draft Shinkurak and he doesn't look promising by this time next year, then you can trade him because some teams will still be high on him.  Some teams might have had him ranked 15th overall or something like that.  On the other hand, if Poirier shows degration in his game by this time next year and you want to trade him, most teams would have had him in the mid-40s and wouldn't pay much to take a chance on him.

 

So, if you're going to go that route, then you might as well draft players who will pan out into the positions of team needs.

[lordxan]

Why LH shot RW?  WHY WHY WHY?  Why don't shoot right?

 

He better have legendary back-hand passing ability to fly down the right wing boards and make plays.  He better be able to receive passes on his back-hand at high speeds. He's fast, so are we looking at a Matthew Lombardi or Mason Raymond? 

 

Isn't Ken Agostino the same thing?  LH shot RW?  Why?

Peeps, generally I was on board with you for the positional drafting and major need for Ctrs.  But after I looked at our over all prospect pool and positions, oddly we are not that bad off moving forward.

 

Further, there are a number of good RW players with LH shot.  While not ideal, if they can play at a top level then who really cares.

 

Now all that said, There is still room for improved depth at Ctr, and RW no doubt.

 

D, well, there is still a good deal of work to do there.

[kehatch]

I for one have been calling for a rebuild.  The Flames just traded away their aging franchise players and stockpiled a bunch of picks and were smart enough to hold on to them.  They are speaking about being patient and actually calling this thing a rebuild.  I am getting my way so I can't complain too much about some of the nitty gritty details.    

 

I didn't get my guys in the draft.  But I also recognize the many people were down on Baertschi after we got him and furious we didn't get McNeil.  Just about all fans, bloggers, and media types don't have a clue in forecasting prospects.  Its a fun debate.  But no way should any of us make the selections.  I can't lose too much sleep because my guys weren't selected.  

 

The only one I really have a problem with is our 3-round selection.  And the only reason I have an issue with that is I think we wasted a high pick on a guy that didn't even think he was getting drafted.  Waiting until the later rounds to draft him would have been the smallest risk we took all draft.  But if I start losing sleep over a 3-round selection I won't get any sleep!  Plus, the Reinhart pick was criticized because it was too safe and because of perceived nepotism.  That has turned out pretty good so far.  

[The_People1]

Your first quote is absolutely doing it for the past; hookinging about something that is completely out of your control, something that we can't do anything about, and simply cannot be changed.

 

All I'm asking from you (and those who are sounding like you on these boards) is to change your way of thinking a little bit, and try to find some positivity in what we've got.  At the end of next season (hell, I'll even cut some slack and say between Christmas and New Year's) things seem like they've fallen off the rails as a direct result of who, what, and how we drafted (very key points there), then by all means feel free to snap.  I'll even hold the bullhorn for you so the front office workers can hear you.

 

Of course we cannot change the past but in order to change the future, we have to learn from the mistakes of the past.  That's where i'm coming from.  That's a mistake to rank Poirier 12th (or possibly even top 10).  Let's not do that again (that's aside from the fact that I like Poirier from what i've read and seen of his youtubes since his being drafted).  I like Poirier. I don't like management's draft strategy.  BIG difference.

 

It's like the Calgary floods.  No use complaining about the precautions that didn't get taken to prevent the floods from happening but if we want to move forward to prevent future floods, then we need to criticize the actions that weren't taken, or should've been taken, in the past.

 

So yes, when the Flames are "clearly" out of a playoff race by next season and fans are still cheering for wins down the stretch, please get the microphone ready.  But between now and then, i'm cheering for the playoffs and the positives.

[kehatch]

By shortlisting the way Button described, you're removing yourself from the opportunity to draft certain players who have high perceived trade value.  You're not maximizing the opportunity. 

 

If you draft Shinkurak and he doesn't look promising by this time next year, then you can trade him because some teams will still be high on him.  Some teams might have had him ranked 15th overall or something like that.  On the other hand, if Poirier shows degration in his game by this time next year and you want to trade him, most teams would have had him in the mid-40s and wouldn't pay much to take a chance on him.

 

So, if you're going to go that route, then you might as well draft players who will pan out into the positions of team needs.

 

That is only true if you trade the player immediately.  But chances are you aren't.  You have to develop prospects to get value.  Nobody cares two years from now where ISS ranked a player.  If you are trading him before that you might as well have just traded the pick.    

 

I agree with using position as a criteria.  But not at the expense of the other criteria.  If I don't like Shinkurak or think he will fit in the team concept I am not drafting him just because he is a RW.  I am also not drafting a RW over a LW if I think the LW is a much better player.  

 

Lets face it, there are going to be a bunch more drafts and trades before these prospects are ready.  Some highly drafted prospects won't turn out while some lower drafted prospects will surprise.  We can't predict the future and we have no idea what positions we will have in our prospect pool or what positions we will need on the team.  

 

The next 10 prospects selected were:

 

• Burakovsky (LW) - Another LW
• Shinkaruk (RW) - Not on the Flames list
• McCarron (RW) - Way off the board and don't like.  
• Theodroe (LD) - Way off the board.  We have lots of LD.
• Dano © - Way off the board.  Another lefty.  
• Klimchuk (LW) - Hmmm
• Dickinson © - Similar rank to Poirier.  Another lefty.  Like him though. 
• Hartman (RW) - You can make a case for Hartman. Would have been my pick.  Lower ceiling though. 
• McCoshen (LD) - Similar rank to Poirier.  Another lefty.  
• Bigras (LD) - Similar rank to Poirier.  Another lefty.  

 

If you are looking for a right handed RW the only two in range were Hartman and Shinkaruk.  There were no RH D.   (Also, look how many off the board picks took place where we drafted Poirier.  Clearly we aren't the only team with a different list then Mackenzie/ISS/etc).  

[Kulstad]

Of course we cannot change the past but in order to change the future, we have to learn from the mistakes of the past.  That's where i'm coming from.  That's a mistake to rank Poirier 12th (or possibly even top 10).  Let's not do that again (that's aside from the fact that I like Poirier from what i've read and seen of his youtubes since his being drafted).  I like Poirier. I don't like management's draft strategy.  BIG difference.

 

It's like the Calgary floods.  No use complaining about the precautions that didn't get taken to prevent the floods from happening but if we want to move forward to prevent future floods, then we need to criticize the actions that weren't taken, or should've been taken, in the past.

 

So yes, when the Flames are "clearly" out of a playoff race by next season and fans are still cheering for wins down the stretch, please get the microphone ready.  But between now and then, i'm cheering for the playoffs and the positives.

 

How was taking Poirier at 12th a mistake?  You have no idea why Feaster & Co put him where he was on the list, unless you were at the draft table or in the war room prior to the draft.

 

then you go on to say

He better have legendary back-hand passing ability to fly down the right wing boards and make plays.  He better be able to receive passes on his back-hand at high speeds

 

You don't have the right to demand that he have ANYTHING, unless you're Jay Feaster or an owner.  Otherwise, you're a fan just like the rest of us.  sure, you have all the rights in the world to have expectations of our new guys, but to put it in the guise of an ultimatum like you did isn't right. 

[The_People1]

How was taking Poirier at 12th a mistake?  You have no idea why Feaster & Co put him where he was on the list, unless you were at the draft table or in the war room prior to the draft.

 

then you go on to say

 

You don't have the right to demand that he have ANYTHING, unless you're Jay Feaster or an owner.  Otherwise, you're a fan just like the rest of us.  sure, you have all the rights in the world to have expectations of our new guys, but to put it in the guise of an ultimatum like you did isn't right. 

 

I just posted a couple posts above why i think it's a mistake,

 

By shortlisting the way Button described, you're removing yourself from the opportunity to draft certain players who have high perceived trade value.  You're not maximizing the opportunity. 

 

If you draft Shinkurak and he doesn't look promising by this time next year, then you can trade him because some teams will still be high on him.  Some teams might have had him ranked 15th overall or something like that.  On the other hand, if Poirier shows degration in his game by this time next year and you want to trade him, most teams would have had him in the mid-40s and wouldn't pay much to take a chance on him.

 

So, if you're going to go that route, then you might as well draft players who will pan out into the positions of team needs.

 

We should have slightly high expectations for a 12th ranked player right?  I'm wrong to expect that from him?  Again, i like Poirier.  I think he would've been a great pick at around 30th overall.

[PokernHockey]

That said, Poirier shouldn't be ranked 12th or higher.  That's just a mistake.  The Flames could've traded down a couple spots and picked up a second round pick and sitll drafted Poirier.

 

Sorry, but this statement really bugs me, especially the last part of it.

 

What exact pick would have been the latest we could have gotten him? In other words, If the Flames do not take him at 22, what exactly was the pick he was going to go to, given all of the players who were on the board. If the flames take shinkaruk instead, who exactly do the nucks pick? And what about the team that actual drafted the nucks consolation prize? How does the entire chain of events effect who ends up taking Poirier?

Lets look at it the other way, a week ago, if someone was high on shinkaruk they would have likely said we had to trade up to (at minimum 15th, probably higher to guarantee we got him. With hindsight, they could have traded down to 23.

There are rumors that Mtl was going to draft him at 25. If you take that at face, or are even concerned it could be true you can only "trade down" to 24. So with that, what exactly do you legitimately think that Vancouver or Washington are going to give the flames to trade up 2 or 1 position that makes it worth the risk that they might also decide to take him? Maybe Vancouver offers something if they covet Shinkaruk vs. had him fall to them, but clearly Washington wasn't interested in him either. Washinton may have decided to take the risk rather then move up one spot, or perhaps there offer would have been a token pick to move up one spot. And Vancouver didn't have a second round pick this year, to say nothing of the rival factor in THAT trade which would have made both teams hesitant. So which of those two teams is willing to give up a second for the honor of drafting 22 in your mind?

 

Button stated that Porier was ranked 12 or higher on the list of guys who could have been available at their 3 picks. I am sure Mackinnon for example was off that list. It is very possible that Poirier was ranked higher then Shinkaruk on BOTH lists, heck, 22 other times he also was not ranked as the best player. By my count, 5 teams in the 20-30 range picked players who were not part of the consensus top 30. Did all of them also make the wrong pick? Why did none of them trade down? What about the Jets and Isles who picked Morrissey and Poluck 13 and 15 vs. in the mid 20's? Did they do wrong by their team?

You may believe that he could have been taken later, or that the flames could have traded down and nabbed him, but not only can you not possibly know where he would have gone without the flames taking him, but you also cannot possibly know what the offer was to trade down. So to present it as a statement of fact that they messed up by not moving down, cannot possibly be legitimate.

[kehatch]

We should have slightly high expectations for a 12th ranked player right?  I'm wrong to expect that from him?  Again, i like Poirier.  I think he would've been a great pick at around 30th overall.

 

Did you watch the Button interview?  

 

He said they have 'compartmentalized' lists.  They new there was a big gap between 6 and 22 and that there were players they weren't going to be able to select so they weren't on the list.  So they have a list of guys at 6, another at 22, etc.  

 

Jay oversells.  We all know that.  One of his worst traits.  But despite his implication I don't think the Flames has Poirier as the 12 best player in the draft.  He just happened to be 12 on their list after excluding the guys that they didn't like and the ones they knew weren't in reach.  

 

But honestly who cares.  They got the guy they had ranked the highest at the time they made their pick.  They look to be solid prospects.  The rest is just semantics.  

[cross16]

I too don't get the sense they had Porier as the 12 th best player in the draft I think he was the 12 th best player they had a shot to select. Button made it sound like they ave two lists, one the complete ranking of all prospects and then second their own list of who they think the would draft but I can see the value of not wasting time over analyzing who is better between Horvat or Domi when the chanes are you won't have a shot at either.

I'm pretty vocal of this idea but I hate the idea of putting lists in order of who is the best per position as I think you end up drafting players that shouldn't be that high but he you need that position. From what I'm hearing this is how Sutter ran his scouting and IMO it's hat really burned us. I remember them saying going into the draft in 07 the were targeting a goalie and look how that turned out. I don't think you ever draft based on position until you get into the last few rounds that's the only time i can see value in it.

I had shinkarik as the highest player on my list but I'm not that upset about it to be honest. I think Hagg actually may have been the better pick there as it would have been nice to walk away from this draft with a high ceiling dman but I still think Porier is a solid prospect.

[phoenix66]

I think Button said it best when he essentially said "we dont care what other people think" they have their iwn criteria, own ranks etc. If all teams used a standard scouting system then theyd all walk in with a copy of the CSS list and go to town..heck, wouldn't even need a draft..just auto assign the players..

In conroys interview before the draft, he talked about the scouts having "heated" discussions..fighting for their players..not unlike we do here. If you go take a look at the "who do we get" thread, theyre all different..

Bottom line, to say that it was "wrong" to select player A over player B is merely saying your list doesnt jive with theirs..you will need to look back in 5 years to determine what was right or wrong. We will likely never see that list..maybe Shinkaruk was ahead of klimchuk, maybe they saw things that said he wasnt flame material at all.

I agree with a few posts above, thats why I didnt quote them all, but these kids are flames now, to dislike Poirer because we didnt take Hunter, is totally unfair to the kid. We pay these guys to find and develop Calgary Flames, lets have some faith they know what theyre doing..we didnt like the Sutter way, lets give Weisbrod some slack!

[s4xon]

So true.

This is what we have @ the moment & are our Flames & their pipeline.

There are current roster players I wouldn't shed a tear for if traded but I'm not going to be down on 17/18 year olds that haven't even attended prospect camp yet. I'll admit the only 1 from this draft that excites me is Monahan but I really don't know that much about the others.

Most of us are showing patience with Sven's developement as we want him ready rather then being thrown into the hot seat because he's the big name in the pipeline (like Scheifele with the Jets). Let's show these kids the same courtesy. I'd rather have them fully developed @ 21 then burned out/ruined by 20.

 

This is what concerns me.  Monahan has admitted he is shy.  He also looked super nervous yesterday, even though it was the draft.  Janko seemed to have more composure last year.  Monahan says he wants the NHL and will work his tail off to get there, great, but if thrown into a roster position, we can't expect amazing things the first season.  I'm all for garnering expecations on the kid, the same result was needed for Sven and everyone including Flames staff was let down.  They did the right thing by sending him back into the A last year.

 

Prime example, a fully developed captain Ben Hanowski.  He got his first goal, but his soft play and deer in the headlights season ender showed he needed more time in pro development.

[Carty]

hookinging about something that is completely out of your control, something that we can't do anything about, and simply cannot be changed.  

try to find some positivity in what we've got.

 

I agree...   I questioned the reasoning a pick or two yesterday, but I was past it before I ate supper yesterday...

 

Monahan is a given, he was a good choice...   The more I have looked into Poirier, the more I like the potential he brings to the table...   I was kind of hoping for a D at #28, a bit of research on Klimchuk's attributes and the fact he was raised in Calgary made me more comfortable with his being selected as well...   The rest are a gamble, and they typically are for any team in those rounds...

 

All 8 of them are in Calgary's system now, and I will cheer them all on and hope that they will have success...   Both for those that can be of help in Abby, and for those that make the Flames...

[travel_dude]

 

This is what concerns me.  Monahan has admitted he is shy.  He also looked super nervous yesterday, even though it was the draft.  Janko seemed to have more composer last year.  Monahan says he wants the NHL and will work his tail off to get there, great, but if thrown into a roster position, we can't expect amazing things the first season.  I'm all for garnering expecations on the kid, the same result was needed for Sven and everyone including Flames staff was let down.  They did the right thing by sending him back into the A last year.

 

Prime example, a fully developed captain Ben Hanowski.  He got his first goal, but his soft play and deer in the headlights season ender showed he needed more time in pro development.

Being shy is not the end of the world for a kid that age. He played on a sucky team and didn't get the camera exposure that Seth and Mac did. I would rather that he shows what he can do and not talk about it.

He is supposedly focused, so he will do everything he can to make the roster. Even if he does, he will probably get no more than 9 games, and then go back to the CHL. That will drive him further in his strive to make the team for keeps, similar to what happened when Sven came back from the Heat.

[The_People1]

Sorry, but this statement really bugs me, especially the last part of it.

 

What exact pick would have been the latest we could have gotten him? In other words, If the Flames do not take him at 22, what exactly was the pick he was going to go to, given all of the players who were on the board. If the flames take shinkaruk instead, who exactly do the nucks pick? And what about the team that actual drafted the nucks consolation prize? How does the entire chain of events effect who ends up taking Poirier?

Lets look at it the other way, a week ago, if someone was high on shinkaruk they would have likely said we had to trade up to (at minimum 15th, probably higher to guarantee we got him. With hindsight, they could have traded down to 23.

There are rumors that Mtl was going to draft him at 25. If you take that at face, or are even concerned it could be true you can only "trade down" to 24. So with that, what exactly do you legitimately think that Vancouver or Washington are going to give the flames to trade up 2 or 1 position that makes it worth the risk that they might also decide to take him? Maybe Vancouver offers something if they covet Shinkaruk vs. had him fall to them, but clearly Washington wasn't interested in him either. Washinton may have decided to take the risk rather then move up one spot, or perhaps there offer would have been a token pick to move up one spot. And Vancouver didn't have a second round pick this year, to say nothing of the rival factor in THAT trade which would have made both teams hesitant. So which of those two teams is willing to give up a second for the honor of drafting 22 in your mind?

 

Button stated that Porier was ranked 12 or higher on the list of guys who could have been available at their 3 picks. I am sure Mackinnon for example was off that list. It is very possible that Poirier was ranked higher then Shinkaruk on BOTH lists, heck, 22 other times he also was not ranked as the best player. By my count, 5 teams in the 20-30 range picked players who were not part of the consensus top 30. Did all of them also make the wrong pick? Why did none of them trade down? What about the Jets and Isles who picked Morrissey and Poluck 13 and 15 vs. in the mid 20's? Did they do wrong by their team?

You may believe that he could have been taken later, or that the flames could have traded down and nabbed him, but not only can you not possibly know where he would have gone without the flames taking him, but you also cannot possibly know what the offer was to trade down. So to present it as a statement of fact that they messed up by not moving down, cannot possibly be legitimate.

 

You're trying to understand how my suggestion can still land Poirier but I'm not even suggesting we draft Poirier at all.  If we trade the 22nd pick for a later 1st (and possibly for picks next year), then do it.  If someone else drafts Poirier before the 28th pick, then someone else drafts Poirier.  If he is still available at 28th, then take him.  Trade down to gain more assets.

 

 

Did you watch the Button interview?  

 

He said they have 'compartmentalized' lists.  They new there was a big gap between 6 and 22 and that there were players they weren't going to be able to select so they weren't on the list.  So they have a list of guys at 6, another at 22, etc.  

 

Jay oversells.  We all know that.  One of his worst traits.  But despite his implication I don't think the Flames has Poirier as the 12 best player in the draft.  He just happened to be 12 on their list after excluding the guys that they didn't like and the ones they knew weren't in reach.  

 

But honestly who cares.  They got the guy they had ranked the highest at the time they made their pick.  They look to be solid prospects.  The rest is just semantics.  

 

Fair enough, if they didn't rank Mackinnon, Jones, Drouin, Horvat, Domi, Ristolainen, Zadorov, etc, etc, then sure.  Makes sense now.  There's probably 15 players rated by CSS, ISS, TSN, etc that were omitted completely.  Feaster made it sound like he ranked everybody and Poirier is 12th which to me is absolutely unacceptable.

 

 

This is what concerns me.  Monahan has admitted he is shy.  He also looked super nervous yesterday, even though it was the draft.  Janko seemed to have more composer last year.  Monahan says he wants the NHL and will work his tail off to get there, great, but if thrown into a roster position, we can't expect amazing things the first season.  I'm all for garnering expecations on the kid, the same result was needed for Sven and everyone including Flames staff was let down.  They did the right thing by sending him back into the A last year.

 

Prime example, a fully developed captain Ben Hanowski.  He got his first goal, but his soft play and deer in the headlights season ender showed he needed more time in pro development.

 

Monahan's interview reminded me of Greg Nemisz's interview.  Both guys were shy and unsure of themselves.  When asked what they can offer the Flames, they both just iterated what scouts say about them... just not socially developed.  Monahan was saying he wants to be a leader but i'm not sure if he's "alpha male" enough.  I can't see this kid walk into the Flames dressing room next season and convince his teammates that he's going to carry them through.  Not with his shyness.

 

The best interview of the day went to Curtis Lazar.  He just talked like a good guy, smile on face, very geniune and socially right there with you.  Lazar can be a vocal guy in the locker room and off-ice if he wants to be.

[robrob1974]

You're trying to understand how my suggestion can still land Poirier but I'm not even suggesting we draft Poirier at all.  If we trade the 22nd pick for a later 1st (and possibly for picks next year), then do it.  If someone else drafts Poirier before the 28th pick, then someone else drafts Poirier.  If he is still available at 28th, then take him.  Trade down to gain more assets.

 

 

 

Fair enough, if they didn't rank Mackinnon, Jones, Drouin, Horvat, Domi, Ristolainen, Zadorov, etc, etc, then sure.  Makes sense now.  There's probably 15 players rated by CSS, ISS, TSN, etc that were omitted completely.  Feaster made it sound like he ranked everybody and Poirier is 12th which to me is absolutely unacceptable.

 

 

 

Monahan's interview reminded me of Greg Nemisz's interview.  Both guys were shy and unsure of themselves.  When asked what they can offer the Flames, they both just iterated what scouts say about them... just not socially developed.  Monahan was saying he wants to be a leader but i'm not sure if he's "alpha male" enough.  I can't see this kid walk into the Flames dressing room next season and convince his teammates that he's going to carry them through.  Not with his shyness.

 

The best interview of the day went to Curtis Lazar.  He just talked like a good guy, smile on face, very geniune and socially right there with you.  Lazar can be a vocal guy in the locker room and off-ice if he wants to be.

 

Leaders come in all shapes and forms. In the interview with Duthie, Duthie used an example of how Monahan had a bad back and was being sat out due to it, with the team not even taking his gear to the game. Monahan made the trainer pick the gear up and he suited up for the game.

 

Just because he's shy on camera and in public or group social settings, doesn't mean he's shy in the dressing room. Things are different in the dressing room. It's what he's known since starting to play hockey. It's a comfort zone. He was captain of the 67's.

[cross16]

 

Monahan's interview reminded me of Greg Nemisz's interview.  Both guys were shy and unsure of themselves.  When asked what they can offer the Flames, they both just iterated what scouts say about them... just not socially developed.  Monahan was saying he wants to be a leader but i'm not sure if he's "alpha male" enough.  I can't see this kid walk into the Flames dressing room next season and convince his teammates that he's going to carry them through.  Not with his shyness.

 

The best interview of the day went to Curtis Lazar.  He just talked like a good guy, smile on face, very geniune and socially right there with you.  Lazar can be a vocal guy in the locker room and off-ice if he wants to be.

Gretzky was also extremely shy when he first started too. Monahan is shy but also the flames aren't expecting him to be a leader in the near future anyway so for me his shyness is not a concern unless it impacted his confidence which I don't think it does.

[Carty]

Leaders come in all shapes and forms. In the interview with Duthie, Duthie used an example of how Monahan had a bad back and was being sat out due to it, with the team not even taking his gear to the game. Monahan made the trainer pick the gear up and he suited up for the game.

 

Just because he's shy on camera and in public or group social settings, doesn't mean he's shy in the dressing room. Things are different in the dressing room. It's what he's known since starting to play hockey. It's a comfort zone. He was captain of the 67's.

 

Well said, and agree...

 

Being in front of a camera can have an effect on people, even with musicians for example...   I have known musicians that were just fine on stage, and great when addressing the crowd with a mike, but when put in front of a camera unless it was at the side of the stage or it had enough distance in front so they could basically ignore it, falter...   When that camera is in your face, a lot of people become self conscious or start to freeze, it's normal...   The ones that are at home with it from the start, are the exception, not the rule...

[jjgallow]

Why is that?  One has nothing to do with the other.  They have their criteria and if you don't fit it you don't make the list.  That doesn't mean position has to be part of the criteria.  Weisbrod has character and hockey sense way up there.  I am sure they scratched off players with questionable character or hockey sense (for example).  

 

I am sure every team does it to some extent.  You can't scout 200+ players.  You have to narrow it down to some extent.  

 

Weisbrod works with Feaster/Button to build and rank the criteria.  They probably start the year with the scouts seeing as many players as they can and slowly start to whittle down to a manageable list (using the criteria) that they focus on for the latter part of the season.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  

 

The point being though that having Poirier as top 10 in a shortened list makes sense.  

 

Yes, you can scout 200+ players.

 

I'll say this once, and then I'll drop the issue:  The Flames lost out big in this draft.

 

Monahan Was a great pick.  I can't say I would have done differently.  Nichushkin would be tempting.

 

But a top 6 pick i the easiest part.   The rest, I feel was wasted.

 

And I've dropped the matter.  For a while.

[TrippinVdUb]

If someone is just going to hooking about everything this team does and every move they make then why the hell are you a flames fan to begin with? You whine when were loosing, you moan when were winning. There just seems to be no making these types happy...

(JJ this comment is not directed at you, your just the post ahead of me lol)

For what ever reason the Flames liked the French kid better then the hometown boy, I'm pretty sure that if Todd really wanted Hunter he would have said something to Jay when it was there turn, the guys were sitting an arms length away from one another and quite capable of having that conversation.

Fact is Button is high on Emilie, enough that he flew out to Quebec himself more then once to go watch him and even assigned a scout too keep tabs on him through out the season. These guys would have scouted Hunter twice as much with him being in our own back yard, sure the kid can score but he can't play D or throw a check so maybe they didn't feel that Hunter was going to be quite as dynamic on the NHL as he is in the dub, or maybe they feel he's already peeked skill wise while Poirier still has a whole other level to achieve?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions but given the fact that I have nothing to go by in any of these prospects other then 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand knowlage from a buch of bloggers and YouTube hits..... I think I'll trust the guys who get paid to do this, they did bring Geudrau, Jankowski and Sven to us so maybe they know what there doing?

I like all 3 picks, they didn't line up with mine but they still excite me and offer hope to the future of this club. Managment did there job, they got us some very good players and restocked the cupboards....

All I can really say is...... GO FLAMES GO!!!

[The_People1]

Yes, you can scout 200+ players.

 

I'll say this once, and then I'll drop the issue:  The Flames lost out big in this draft.

 

Monahan Was a great pick.  I can't say I would have done differently.  Nichushkin would be tempting.

 

But a top 6 pick i the easiest part.   The rest, I feel was wasted.

 

And I've dropped the matter.  For a while.

 

I don't think the Flames lost out big.  We just didn't nail it when we needed to nail it.  This was one of the most important drafts in franchise history afterall.  Monahan over Nichushkin was a no brainer for me but I would have prefered Nurse.  I would've done something different with the 22nd pick.

 

All in all, we needed virtually everything (except LWs) and we got a bit of everything.

 

For the record, i would have drafted,

6th Nurse

22nd Zykov

28th Hartman

 

We'll see what happens in about 5 years.

[s4xon]

Yes, you can scout 200+ players.

 

I'll say this once, and then I'll drop the issue:  The Flames lost out big in this draft.

 

Monahan Was a great pick.  I can't say I would have done differently.  Nichushkin would be tempting.

 

But a top 6 pick i the easiest part.   The rest, I feel was wasted.

 

And I've dropped the matter.  For a while.

 

I should save this in my vault for 2 years, then we'll review it and see how you feel then.