Flames Live Prospect Tracker

[cross16]

On 10/18/2017 at 6:09 PM, The_People1 said:

 

It's too bad.  We needed to nail the 2013 and 2014 drafts but didn't.  Now we are left with a hole on our RW and no prospects ready.

 

Not even just RW, you have to bring in or extend the likes of Versteeg, Jagr, Glass, Stajan, Stone, Bartwoski etc because they've got no depth because they missed so badly from 12-14 on their high picks. Bringing in older veterans means your slower which is exactly what we are seeing on the ice right now. Need to get that type of speed through the draft typically and Flames failed too. 

[The_People1]

On 10/18/2017 at 9:47 PM, jjgallow said:

 

Ah, 2013.  The Keegan Kanzig draft.   We got Monahan right, at least.

 

Everything after that, we started drafting off the board that year (thus exit Feaster).   Small chance for Poirier/Klimchuk, but basically, yeah.   Getting close to calling it.

 

2014, I stand behind Sam Bennett but definitely could go a little smoother with the development.  After that we went WAY off the board.   

 

I do feel we cleaned up our act and drafted better from 2015-2017

 

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Not even just RW, you have to bring in or extend the likes of Versteeg, Jagr, Glass, Stajan, Stone, Bartwoski etc because they've got no depth because they missed so badly from 12-14 on their high picks. Bringing in older veterans means your slower which is exactly what we are seeing on the ice right now. Need to get that type of speed through the draft typically and Flames failed too. 

 

As we sit today, we have 2 first round busts from the 2013 draft.  That's fatal for any rebuild.  Can't even salvage a bottom pairing D or 3rd line forward from a first round pick. By the looks of it, there were many left on the board who could have been had.  So sad.

 

As if that wasn't bad enough, we bust 2 second round picks the following year.

[jjgallow]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

As we sit today, we have 2 first round busts from the 2013 draft.  That's fatal for any rebuild.  Can't even salvage a bottom pairing D or 3rd line forward from a first round pick. By the looks of it, there were many left on the board who could have been had.  So sad.

 

As if that wasn't bad enough, we bust 2 second round picks the following year.

 

What's really sad about it is that it was obvious from the moment it happened, and we said it.  Really clearly.  On here.

 

Of course, by rights, that was met with a lot of harsh criticism  and that we should give it time.   Which we have.   And it's...still bad.  

 

There were a lot of mistakes in the rebuild, including the events which resulted in those first round picks (which could have been much higher imho).

 

The good news, is that by 2015, we finally started to get our act together and started drafting well (BPA).    

 

The bad news, is that shortly after this, we prematurely ended the rebuild, and now we're selling all our picks for cheap.

 

I don't want to say it.   But....deep down inside it all feels a little bit to me like we may fall into another rebuild cycle....or worse yet, be mediocre for a decade.

 

[jjgallow]

dreaded double post

[CheersMan]

Cheer up boys, its only one game losing streak.  The sky is not falling.  We are not entering another re-build.

It would be nice to be 7 for 7 in the daft every year, but where would you put them all each year?  If a team has one spot open every year for an up an comer, then your doing just fine.  This year we have a big talented center man knocking on the door, which puts us right on track.  He’ll play this year when the dust settles.

Last year it was Tkachuk

The year before that it was Bennett

The year before that it was Gaudreau

The year before that it was Monahan   

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, CheersMan said:

 If a team has one spot open every year for an up an comer, then your doing just fine.  

 

Yes and no,

 

A 20-player roster ages by 20 years each season, not taking into account incidental roster changes.

 

If you're adding the calibre of player you described above each year, you're getting an average of 10-15 years replenishment per year, per player.  Some may surprise and give you 20 good years (highly exceptional, not even Iginla did this).   Some might surprise and give you only 5.  Or less.  Ie., Baertschi.  Hopefully not Bennett.

 

So the list you described above doesn't even address the natural replenishment needed on every NHL team, every year.

 

And that was our "rebuild".    (granted, you missed a few players.  But we're still short)

 

What I'm saying, is that NHL teams really need approximately two players to turn out each year, in each draft (obviously not the same year).   Maybe one 12-year player, and one 8-year player, for instance.   Teams that can't manage this need to rely on unfavourable trades, high priced free agents, undrafted player gambles, and they end up selling their draft picks to other teams that actually know what to do with them.   That's been us.

 

A team in a rebuild should be getting significantly MORE than that over a 3-5 year period.

 

[CheersMan]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yes and no,

 

A 20-player roster ages by 20 years each season, not taking into account incidental roster changes.

 

If you're adding the calibre of player you described above each year, you're getting an average of 10-15 years replenishment per year, per player.  Some may surprise and give you 20 good years (highly exceptional, not even Iginla did this).   Some might surprise and give you only 5.  Or less.  Ie., Baertschi.  Hopefully not Bennett.

 

So the list you described above doesn't even address the natural replenishment needed on every NHL team, every year.

 

And that was our "rebuild".    (granted, you missed a few players.  But we're still short)

 

What I'm saying, is that NHL teams really need approximately two players to turn out each year, in each draft (obviously not the same year).   Maybe one 12-year player, and one 8-year player, for instance.   Teams that can't manage this need to rely on unfavourable trades, high priced free agents, undrafted player gambles, and they end up selling their draft picks to other teams that actually know what to do with them.   That's been us.

 

A team in a rebuild should be getting significantly MORE than that over a 3-5 year period.

 

I’ll agree that 2 is better than one.

We can add the following players over the same time period who were either drafted or acquired with those picks.

Ham and Ham, Ferland, Lazar, Stone, Smith.

[cross16]

On 2017-10-20 at 7:22 PM, CheersMan said:

Cheer up boys, its only one game losing streak.  The sky is not falling.  We are not entering another re-build.

It would be nice to be 7 for 7 in the daft every year, but where would you put them all each year?  If a team has one spot open every year for an up an comer, then your doing just fine.  This year we have a big talented center man knocking on the door, which puts us right on track.  He’ll play this year when the dust settles.

Last year it was Tkachuk

The year before that it was Bennett

The year before that it was Gaudreau

The year before that it was Monahan   

 

2012-2014 flames had 8 picks in the top 60 and so far have 1 key player to show for it. Bennett really isn't there and neither is jankowski and even if jankowski does play soon that's no where near good enough. 

 

I don't think another rebuild is coming but it's also very clear the Flames blew some early opportunities in their rebuild with shoddy drafting. 

[CheersMan]

56 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

2012-2014 flames had 8 picks in the top 60 and so far have 1 key player to show for it. Bennett really isn't there and neither is jankowski and even if jankowski does play soon that's no where near good enough. 

 

I don't think another rebuild is coming but it's also very clear the Flames blew some early opportunities in their rebuild with shoddy drafting. 

That's not a great draft record according to your numbers.

Then enters Tree..........I think we improved since then.

 

 

[cross16]

8 hours ago, CheersMan said:

That's not a great draft record according to your numbers.

Then enters Tree..........I think we improved since then.

 

 

 

And I do as well but they are feeling the pain of that poor drafting now. Which is just really unfortunate given they want to win now and have some nice pieces in place. 

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, CheersMan said:

That's not a great draft record according to your numbers.

Then enters Tree..........I think we improved since then.

 

 

 

The individual misses from a few years ago are harder to take than the number of misses.  2015-17 have been good, or look good right now.  The 2014 draft was a miss after the 1st round.  Montour, Dvorak, Point, Arvidson are players that could have been making an impact here.  Instead, we have (had) MacDonald, Smith and Hickey.  The 2013 draft was bad with Kanzig, Roy, Harrison, Rafikov and Gilmour.  None of those are NHL player from the draft immediately after signalling our rebuild.  

 

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

And I do as well but they are feeling the pain of that poor drafting now. Which is just really unfortunate given they want to win now and have some nice pieces in place. 

 

Up until very recently I would have forgiven them for those early drafting mistakes, because management has turned over.

 

But now we've thrown away most of our 2018 picks.    After drafting so well and making so much good use of them these last few years (15-17).

 

I'm not seeing the payoff.  Especially in a draft so strong this year, many in the first round will be ready almost immediately or within a year.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Up until very recently I would have forgiven them for those early drafting mistakes, because management has turned over.

 

But now we've thrown away most of our 2018 picks.    After drafting so well and making so much good use of them these last few years (15-17).

 

I'm not seeing the payoff.  Especially in a draft so strong this year, many in the first round will be ready almost immediately or within a year.

There is no perfect way to go about this and we may be seeing the need to burn 2018 picks to make up for previous poor decisions. A GM has to address his roster every year and if there are holes he has to fill them. If you want those holes filled with quality players you pay high for them. I wouldn't give up on Klimchuk and Poirier just yet, they aren't top 6 but they could turn out to be very good bottom 6 wingers. I don't think we are sitting all that terribly.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

There is no perfect way to go about this

 

ok, sounding reasonable

 

Quote

and we may be seeing the need to burn 2018 picks to make up for previous poor decisions.

 

Addressing poor decisions with More poor decisions is Never ok.   We go through this every year.  Every year we think our current needs are far greater than our future needs and so we set ourselves up for future failure so that we can throw bandaids on the present.   It makes  no sense.  It is a knee-jerk, gut reaction to appease current ticket holders.  Our first two picks are gone and it is NOT winning us any games, even in the present, which shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

 

Hamonic is not a young pup.  He probably has 3 year left of being a core player.  If that.   And I would still question whether he's a core player now.  We traded for a guy with a -21 plus/minus to help us out defensively and we're shocked when we're worse off defensively after the trade.

 

There were far better and shrewder ways to address our issue at D.    To perpetuate the problem is highly irresponsible and we will pay for it for years to come.  The 2018 draft is a Strong one.

 

Quote

A GM has to address his roster every year and if there are holes he has to fill them. If you want those holes filled with quality players you pay high for them. 

 

Now you've got me started, lol.

 

We cannot even begin to pretend that there were no other options.   That just isn't true.  To do what we did takes a phenomenal lack of creativity and basic problem solving.

 

Probably Half the league had similar issues where they needed to fill holes in net and defence.   We were not in a unique situation at all.   This is nothing more than politics and management trying to appease fans by showing them how "out of the rebuild" they've brought us.   Which could actually put us into another one.

 

There is Russia.  There is Europe.   Goalies do NOT require picks to acquire.  They require good scouting and good management to acquire.  There are loads of free agent goalies Everywhere.    We could have had Cody Franson, as an example, for free, who is a Better denceman, and is doing extremely well right now after finally getting picked up.

 

Same thing with Beauchemin.   At no cost to our future.

 

Toronto just signed Roman Polak.  I've never been a huge fan, but he could have filled in nicely and we wouldn't be short a future superstar by handing over all our picks.

 

No other NHL team thought it would be a great idea to panic like we did going into the 2018 draft so we could save face.  No other NHL team lacked the creativity to find a sustainable solution.   There are SOO many good defencemen out there who haven't even been given a tryout.   Loads.    

Yannick Rathgeb  http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=95055

Joel Persson  http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=63003

Libor Sulak http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=115708

 

We Didn't...Even...Try.  Anything.

[MAC331]

22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

ok, sounding reasonable

 

 

Addressing poor decisions with More poor decisions is Never ok.   We go through this every year.  Every year we think our current needs are far greater than our future needs and so we set ourselves up for future failure so that we can throw bandaids on the present.   It makes  no sense.  It is a knee-jerk, gut reaction to appease current ticket holders.  Our first two picks are gone and it is NOT winning us any games, even in the present, which shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

 

Hamonic is not a young pup.  He probably has 3 year left of being a core player.  If that.   And I would still question whether he's a core player now.  We traded for a guy with a -21 plus/minus to help us out defensively and we're shocked when we're worse off defensively after the trade.

 

There were far better and shrewder ways to address our issue at D.    To perpetuate the problem is highly irresponsible and we will pay for it for years to come.  The 2018 draft is a Strong one.

 

 

Now you've got me started, lol.

 

We cannot even begin to pretend that there were no other options.   That just isn't true.  To do what we did takes a phenomenal lack of creativity and basic problem solving.

 

Probably Half the league had similar issues where they needed to fill holes in net and defence.   We were not in a unique situation at all.   This is nothing more than politics and management trying to appease fans by showing them how "out of the rebuild" they've brought us.   Which could actually put us into another one.

 

There is Russia.  There is Europe.   Goalies do NOT require picks to acquire.  They require good scouting and good management to acquire.  There are loads of free agent goalies Everywhere.    We could have had Cody Franson, as an example, for free, who is a Better denceman, and is doing extremely well right now after finally getting picked up.

 

Same thing with Beauchemin.   At no cost to our future.

 

Toronto just signed Roman Polak.  I've never been a huge fan, but he could have filled in nicely and we wouldn't be short a future superstar by handing over all our picks.

 

No other NHL team thought it would be a great idea to panic like we did going into the 2018 draft so we could save face.  No other NHL team lacked the creativity to find a sustainable solution.   There are SOO many good defencemen out there who haven't even been given a tryout.   Loads.    

Yannick Rathgeb  http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=95055

Joel Persson  http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=63003

Libor Sulak http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=115708

 

We Didn't...Even...Try.  Anything.

They are not bandaids at the pro level they are defined needs. It may be caused by a lack of good decisions previously but the GM has to make it good for the team that is there.

The NHL is the end of the line and there will only ever be so many spots so there will be fall out and not everyone in the AHL is worthy of those spots. The funnel gets narrower every level after Midget. You haven't mentioned one player I would want for this team for the sake of saving those picks. The main team takes priority for me as a fan. prospects are just that prospects. I can't help you regarding Hamonic but when one of the most coveted defensemen becomes available you better be prepared to deal for him.

You live in your own world JJ.

I like this team and where we are heading. I see this has another season of developing and gaining experience with good depth filling in behind. Like I said only so many spots.

[jjgallow]

59 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You live in your own world JJ.

I like this team and where we are heading. 

 

Dude...straight up, I don't.  Nobody's a fan of losing our 2018 draft picks.   Nobody's "happy" with how we've started the season.  Or last season.  Or the last 30 years.

 

It is you in your world being positive.   But, what's clear about the Flames, is that if they can keep their cap down and avoid rentals by overpaying with draft picks instead, and the Fans are "ok" with the mediocrity, they'll keep doing it.   And they'll make it an election issue to do it in a way that costs you even more money to watch a game than it does now.

 

This is a business and if you can't see it that it's fine.  But don't be fooled that those who don 't share your "positivity"  are in their own world or are in the minority.  They need just enough "positive" people to fill those seats, and they're good.  But that's not the majority of anything in this city.

 

You are free to go ahead and be positive about the Flames franchise.  Meanwhile, I'm positive about hockey.  I like hockey, and I like where it's going.    The Flames won't be part of that in the 2018 draft, and that is an incredible oversight of how this game is evolving.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

Hamonic is not a young pup.  He probably has 3 year left of being a core player.  If that.   And I would still question whether he's a core player now.  We traded for a guy with a -21 plus/minus to help us out defensively and we're shocked when we're worse off defensively after the trade.

 

There were far better and shrewder ways to address our issue at D.    To perpetuate the problem is highly irresponsible and we will pay for it for years to come.  The 2018 draft is a Strong one.

 

We have development issues.  You suggest that drafting solves them.  All it does is load up the farm for a long period of time because we don't have enough space to bing them along.  Same issue every year.  Unless a player is ready in their draft year, we will see them in the AHL for 1-5 years.  

 

So, we traded for Dougie and Hamonic.  The cost was high, but both could be Flames for a long time to come.  Saying Hamonic has less than 3 years left at a high level is just an opinion of yours.  Year one of Dougie looked bad.  Much better now, though he is still learning.  Same goes for Hamonic.  Give him 20 games to fully adjust to a system that the team took a year to figure out.

 

No matter how many picks you get over the 2017 and 2018 years, there are going to be misses.  Our team is not the only one to make them.  So there is no guarantee that you get anything resembling a Dahlen or a McDavid.  You get the odd Valimaki or Fox.  Maybe a Gillies.  Feaster had 3 1st and still made some choices that looked good, but development hasn't panned out.  

[CheersMan]

I’m trying to understand just how bad our drafting and development has been, according to some. 

The only way to understand this is to compare us to other teams.  Looking at the last 7 years, 2011 till now, which teams have a better 6 which came thru the draft?  No top 3 players allowed in any year since we were never privy to have one.  The player has to have played atleast 1 NHL game and still be with the original team.  The Flames have Tkachuk, Bennett, Monahan, Jankowski, Gillies and Gaudreau.  List the team and players please.  

[jjgallow]

47 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We have development issues.  You suggest that drafting solves them. 

 

You make some really good points but  I don't think your premise is fair.   I don't recall ever saying that drafting would solve our development issues.  Or even implying it.

 

I think I've been pretty clear that giving up all our picks, is going to be problem down the road.   Like it has been any other time we've done it.  Otherwise I agree with lots of what you said, and I even like the Hamilton trade because we essentially got him at the beginning of his career. 

 

You're right that we have differing opinions on Hamonic, but that aside, even if he's all that, there were Other ways we could have acquired a top D.  Maybe even a better D.   We have a Lot of centers, for instance.   Been saying that for a year now.  

 

If your AHL system is clogged up (cough cough, Jankowski), something's wrong.  Stopping drafting isn't the solution.   That's like hearing a funny sound in your car and solving it by not filling up with gas anymore.

[jjgallow]

12 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

I’m trying to understand just how bad our drafting and development has been, according to some. 

The only way to understand this is to compare us to other teams.  Looking at the last 7 years, 2011 till now, which teams have a better 6 which came thru the draft?  No top 3 players allowed in any year since we were never privy to have one.  The player has to have played atleast 1 NHL game and still be with the original team.  The Flames have Tkachuk, Bennett, Monahan, Jankowski, Gillies and Gaudreau.  List the team and players please.  

 

I'm tempted to do this, I don't have the time at the moment.   But the first thing I have to say is, that wouldn't be a fair comparison at all.  The Flames were in a rebuild.   Or at least they were supposed to be.  The comparables would be, potentially.. IMHO:

• The Oilers (who are always in a rebuild)
• The Panthers
• The Sabres

 

----something along those lines.  with note of the Leafs, the Yotes, the Canes, the Predators (off the top of my head)

 

something very roughly like the above.

 

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

You make some really good points but  I don't think your premise is fair.   I don't recall ever saying that drafting would solve our development issues.  Or even implying it.

 

I think I've been pretty clear that giving up all our picks, is going to be problem down the road.   Like it has been any other time we've done it.  Otherwise I agree with lots of what you said, and I even like the Hamilton trade because we essentially got him at the beginning of his career. 

 

You're right that we have differing opinions on Hamonic, but that aside, even if he's all that, there were Other ways we could have acquired a top D.  Maybe even a better D.   We have a Lot of centers, for instance.   Been saying that for a year now.  

 

If your AHL system is clogged up (cough cough, Jankowski), something's wrong.  Stopping drafting isn't the solution.   That's like hearing a funny sound in your car and solving it by not filling up with gas anymore.

 

No, it's more like stopping the car and looking under the hood.  Call a tow truck if you don;t know what the problem is.

 

If you feel that getting Dougie was a good move, getting a more-defensive version also is a good move.  That assumes you are the GM and like what you see/have seen.  You talk to your scouts and ask them.  You look at the fit.  Let's face it though, the only way you get anything close to the equivalent, especially at a young age, is to overpay.  You want Hanafin or Ghost; be prepared to pay in picks plus a top forward prospect or roster player.  Think Monahan or Backlund.  NYI wanted more than an Eberle for Hamonic.  NJ got Hall for Larsson.  So to get quality you have to give up quality, which for this team would put us back to pre-Monahan days.  Nice.  So them we have a top D prospect to go with an aging team and no top center.  

 

I actually have a problem with the number of picks we used to solve two roster spots.  Ok three.  Stone cost a 3rd and a conditional 5th.  Elliott cost a 2nd.  Hamonic cost a 1st and two 2nds.  Smith cost a 3rd and Hickey, who I could care less about.  Lack cost a 6th IIRC.  Stone and Elliott are the ones that bother me now.  Smith and Hamonic together are a lot but valuable players for us.  Lack is an unknown that has seen better days and Stone was a big trade that cost 3.5 as well to keep.           

[jjgallow]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

No, it's more like stopping the car and looking under the hood.  Call a tow truck if you don;t know what the problem is.

 

Ok, who invests an entire year into stopping their car to look under their hood?

 

If "calling a tow truck" means putting someone else in charge, I'm listening...

 

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

If you feel that getting Dougie was a good move, getting a more-defensive version also is a good move.  That assumes you are the GM and like what you see/have seen.  You talk to your scouts and ask them.  You look at the fit.  Let's face it though, the only way you get anything close to the equivalent, especially at a young age, is to overpay.  You want Hanafin or Ghost; be prepared to pay in picks plus a top forward prospect or roster player.  Think Monahan or Backlund.  NYI wanted more than an Eberle for Hamonic.  NJ got Hall for Larsson.  So to get quality you have to give up quality, which for this team would put us back to pre-Monahan days.  Nice.  So them we have a top D prospect to go with an aging team and no top center.  

 

Ok, so the disagreement is Hamonic-specific.   Fair enough, I can live with that.   To be honest, for the right player I would have dangled Backlund, or Bennett.    Eberle and Hall were high risk damaged goods.  Eberle specially.   Hall appears to be turning out, Eberle not so much.   I think Eberle's drop in value had more to do with that.

 

Plus, Edmonton's not that bright.

 

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I actually have a problem with the number of picks we used to solve two roster spots.  Ok three.  Stone cost a 3rd and a conditional 5th.  Elliott cost a 2nd.  Hamonic cost a 1st and two 2nds.  Smith cost a 3rd and Hickey, who I could care less about.  Lack cost a 6th IIRC.  Stone and Elliott are the ones that bother me now.  Smith and Hamonic together are a lot but valuable players for us.  Lack is an unknown that has seen better days and Stone was a big trade that cost 3.5 as well to keep.           

 

Couldn't agree more with Stone, Elliot, Lack.    We have that.

[cross16]

15 hours ago, CheersMan said:

I’m trying to understand just how bad our drafting and development has been, according to some. 

The only way to understand this is to compare us to other teams.  Looking at the last 7 years, 2011 till now, which teams have a better 6 which came thru the draft?  No top 3 players allowed in any year since we were never privy to have one.  The player has to have played atleast 1 NHL game and still be with the original team.  The Flames have Tkachuk, Bennett, Monahan, Jankowski, Gillies and Gaudreau.  List the team and players please.  

 

I don't think the Flames are bad at drafting/developing but we shouldn't also act like they are good or great either.

This is a very flawed way to looks at things for many reasons. First of all you are going to give the Flames more credit than they deserve because they picked in the top 10 more than most teams but then teams that drafted in the top 3 get punished? That doesn't make any sense. During that time span only 6 teams drafted in the top 10 more than the Flames (Edm, Col, WPG, TO, CAR and BUFF) so by default the Flames should have more core players via the draft than most teams. So first analysis are the Flames the best roster of those 6 teams? I would say no. 

 

2nd what about aggregate draft position and the amount of picks? Not only did the Flames have multiple top 10 picks, from 2013-2015 they had 8 top 60 picks through those 3 drafts. So again expectations should be that you pull more contributing players. For example look at Ana. From 2011- 2014 they pulled the following out of the draft: Rakell, Gibson, Manson, William Karlsson, LIndholm, Fredrik Andersson, Nick Ritchie, and Brandon Montour. Now by your Analysis the Flames did a better job but can anyone actually compare the two teams and tell me, when you consider draft position again, that your not more impressed by what Anaheim did?

Lightning: Palat, Kucherov, Nemstienkov, Vasilevsky, Cedric Paquette Jonathan Droun, Brayden Point. Again the flames list may look more impressive but the Lightning did that with 1 top 10 pick so in terms of the argument around drafting and developing I would suggest the Lightning did a better job. 

 

So with some non scientific analysis I would point to the following teams that did/do a better job than the Flames:

WPG, Toronto, Anahim, Florida, Carolina, Pittsburgh, LA, Washington I think are clear and I would personally argue Columbus and Nashville did a better job as well. 

 

The other problem with this analysis is Gaudreau is really going to skew your perspective and there are no other team that drafted as much in the top 60 in the same period as the flames did so it's tough to compare Apples to Apples. Because I would certainly argue that when you had when you have 6 top 60 picks in 2 drafts and you only hit on 1 and are still waiting on the other (Bennett) that is NOT a good record. The closest you can come up with is Buffalo in 2012-2013 and I would take what they did in those 2 over the Flames and I still don't even think Buffalo did a good job. 

 

 

 

 

[cross16]

Originally came in here to post this. Linus Lindstrom is on the Swedes Preliminary roster for the World Juniors

 

 

[CheersMan]

17 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm tempted to do this, I don't have the time at the moment.   But the first thing I have to say is, that wouldn't be a fair comparison at all.  The Flames were in a rebuild.   Or at least they were supposed to be.  The comparables would be, potentially.. IMHO:

• The Oilers (who are always in a rebuild)
• The Panthers
• The Sabres

 

----something along those lines.  with note of the Leafs, the Yotes, the Canes, the Predators (off the top of my head)

 

something very roughly like the above.

 

 

You have lots of time.  Teams and names please.

 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't think the Flames are bad at drafting/developing but we shouldn't also act like they are good or great either.

This is a very flawed way to looks at things for many reasons. First of all you are going to give the Flames more credit than they deserve because they picked in the top 10 more than most teams but then teams that drafted in the top 3 get punished? That doesn't make any sense. During that time span only 6 teams drafted in the top 10 more than the Flames (Edm, Col, WPG, TO, CAR and BUFF) so by default the Flames should have more core players via the draft than most teams. So first analysis are the Flames the best roster of those 6 teams? I would say no. 

 

2nd what about aggregate draft position and the amount of picks? Not only did the Flames have multiple top 10 picks, from 2013-2015 they had 8 top 60 picks through those 3 drafts. So again expectations should be that you pull more contributing players. For example look at Ana. From 2011- 2014 they pulled the following out of the draft: Rakell, Gibson, Manson, William Karlsson, LIndholm, Fredrik Andersson, Nick Ritchie, and Brandon Montour. Now by your Analysis the Flames did a better job but can anyone actually compare the two teams and tell me, when you consider draft position again, that your not more impressed by what Anaheim did?

Lightning: Palat, Kucherov, Nemstienkov, Vasilevsky, Cedric Paquette Jonathan Droun, Brayden Point. Again the flames list may look more impressive but the Lightning did that with 1 top 10 pick so in terms of the argument around drafting and developing I would suggest the Lightning did a better job. 

 

So with some non scientific analysis I would point to the following teams that did/do a better job than the Flames:

WPG, Toronto, Anahim, Florida, Carolina, Pittsburgh, LA, Washington I think are clear and I would personally argue Columbus and Nashville did a better job as well. 

 

The other problem with this analysis is Gaudreau is really going to skew your perspective and there are no other team that drafted as much in the top 60 in the same period as the flames did so it's tough to compare Apples to Apples. Because I would certainly argue that when you had when you have 6 top 60 picks in 2 drafts and you only hit on 1 and are still waiting on the other (Bennett) that is NOT a good record. The closest you can come up with is Buffalo in 2012-2013 and I would take what they did in those 2 over the Flames and I still don't even think Buffalo did a good job. 

 

 

 

 

I’m not saying the Flames have a good or great drafting/development record.  I’m simply asking for teams and names (6) who you think have done it better since 2011.  JJ keeps saying we don’t know what we’re doing and we’ve been doing the same thing for 30 years, so show us.  Lottery picks skew the results and we have never gotten one so I’ve eliminated them, no top 3.  If it makes you feel better, put the lottery picks as 7,8,9.

You have picked;

ANA, Rakell, Gibson, Manson, Lindholm, Ritchie and Montour.  Karlsson and Anderson are gone.

TB, Palat, Kucherov, Vasilevsky, Nemstienkov, Paquette, Point.  Drouin was a top 3 plus he is gone.