Who Should We Fashion Or Rebuild Around?

[kehatch]

Detroit, Philly, Boston, etc are not on the list since they have been able to be consistently competitive. We are out of the playoffs for half of a decade. We aren't in a position to build on the fly like those teams.

But if you mean based on how they play, I agree with s4. I think we need to build a team that can compete on our division. That means big and bad.

[TrippinVdUb]

Big, bad and skilled, say what you want about the LA's, San Jose's and Anaheim's of the world being big and strong, but they are also highly skilled teams that can skate through you or around you. Chicago is more on the skilled end but they have a ton of heart and never back down from a rough and tumble style of play...

You can look at any successful team in the league and find the same attributes spread out through there line up, heart, grit, skill and determination... There is no secret formula or model to building a winner in any sport, its about finding that core group of players that have what it takes to get the job done and surrounding them with the right players to compliment there skill set.

[robrob1974]

Detroit, Philly, Boston, etc are not on the list since they have been able to be consistently competitive. We are out of the playoffs for half of a decade. We aren't in a position to build on the fly like those teams.

But if you mean based on how they play, I agree with s4. I think we need to build a team that can compete on our division. That means big and bad.

Ya, but Detroit was horrible for years before they started this run they're on. They had to build as well. You can use them as an example of how to build a team. The same goes for the other teams. The end result is what the rebuild will look like and it's what I want to see, that model of consistency. Boston went through a period of being bad too.

Of course I am not saying its an immediate thing, we are still in the beginning stage of the rebuild and need to grow leadership in the youth. I want players of the Sakics, Yzermans, Lidstroms, Messiers, Gilmours, etc, leadership qualities.

I want it so that we don't need to trade our best players like we did with Iginla and allow them to finish their careers here if that's what they want. If we continue to develop our players that doesn't have to happen.

[The_People1]

No matter what, we should still draft BPA.  We cannot look at a guy like Nick Ritchie and think he's got 50/50 chance to become Milan Lucic and take him at 4th when there are guys with much higher percentage to become high end first line players.  It still comes down to how the chips fall.  There's no Jonathan Toews in every draft and certainly not available in the mid-first-rounds.  But if someone with Toews leadership but doesn't have that level of game, you can't reach for him in the draft.

[TrippinVdUb]

And this is why we need to draft Sam Bennit... Reinhart is great, Ekbland is a stud and The big German has game breaking skills, but Sammy B brings those intangibles you cant teach.

If you want a Stevie Y, Doug Gilmore type guy, then look no further. I will be pumped if hes still sitting there at 4, him and Monny could be one of the best 1-2 punches down the middle in a couple of years, add a tenacious guy like Knight and some depth scoring with Granlund and I sees a formable group of centers in Calgary for the foreseeable future. Of course this is all just based on potential but potential isn't exactly a trait the flames have had an abundance of in a very long time.

[cross16]

No matter what, we should still draft BPA. We cannot look at a guy like Nick Ritchie and think he's got 50/50 chance to become Milan Lucic and take him at 4th when there are guys with much higher percentage to become high end first line players. It still comes down to how the chips fall. There's no Jonathan Toews in every draft and certainly not available in the mid-first-rounds. But if someone with Toews leadership but doesn't have that level of game, you can't reach for him in the draft.

Exactly which is why I think it's impossible to follow another teams rebuild. You draft your main pieces to a rebuild and you can't pre determine your draft picks. You can, and should, follow a blueprint as to how you want your team to play however.

[kehatch]

Exactly which is why I think it's impossible to follow another teams rebuild. You draft your main pieces to a rebuild and you can't pre determine your draft picks. You can, and should, follow a blueprint as to how you want your team to play however.

 

I don't totally agree with this.  Sure you draft BPA.  But that is a subjective rating heavily influenced by the type of team you are trying to create.  If you value certain characteristics you are going to rank that criteria higher.  If you don't you end up drafting a mish mash of players that can be difficult to fit a team around.  

[TrippinVdUb]

I don't totally agree with this. Sure you draft BPA. But that is a subjective rating heavily influenced by the type of team you are trying to create. If you value certain characteristics you are going to rank that criteria higher. If you don't you end up drafting a mish mash of players that can be difficult to fit a team around.

Kane and Toews are polar opposites while Malkin and Croby are more similar players...

Who is having more success so far?

[kehatch]

Kane and Toews are polar opposites while Malkin and Croby are more similar players...

Who is having more success so far?

 

The point being?  All successful teams have an identity.  That includes Chicago.  

[TrippinVdUb]

The point being? All successful teams have an identity. That includes Chicago.

my point is that neither were drafted based on the same criteria, they were simply the BPA when they stepped up to the podium, the identity of the Hawks wasn't established until after the core was put together and Chicago could see with there own eyes what they had in front of them.

I dont think you can build a core through the draft with the mindset that you want Big guys, skilled guys or what ever, you just try to grab the best player you can and then start building from there.

[kehatch]

my point is that neither were drafted based on the same criteria, they were simply the BPA when they stepped up to the podium, the identity of the Hawks wasn't established until after the core was put together and Chicago could see with there own eyes what they had in front of them.

I dont think you can build a core through the draft with the mindset that you want Big guys, skilled guys or what ever, you just try to grab the best player you can and then start building from there.

 

Within reason.  Every so often there is a legitimate BPA.  But there is rarely consensus on BPA outside of the top 3. In many seasons (like this one) not even than.  I agree that you draft BPA, and that doesn't always mesh with your blue print.  But you still have to know what type of team your building.  And that impacts all of your decisions.  Including how you draft.  

 

The Flames have a blue print.  Burke has been clear on that.  It influenced who he hired as GM for example.  You don't just draft a bunch of players and than go from there.  

[TrippinVdUb]

Within reason. Every so often there is a legitimate BPA. But there is rarely consensus on BPA outside of the top 3. In many seasons (like this one) not even than. I agree that you draft BPA, and that doesn't always mesh with your blue print. But you still have to know what type of team your building. And that impacts all of your decisions. Including how you draft.

The Flames have a blue print. Burke has been clear on that. It influenced who he hired as GM for example. You don't just draft a bunch of players and than go from there.

And from the pieces we have in place, I will say that imo Burke is right to want to add weight to this roster. With guys like Sven, Johnny, Huddler and possibly Cammy all in the line up, we stack up to be one of if not the smallest team in the league, but to think that he will step up to the podium with the fourth pick and take a guy like Nick Ritche over a Reinhart because he brings more "truculence" would be absolutely ridiculous. We may as well throw the towel in now if thats the case.

If you want to trade assets and sign UFA's to bring in guys that fit the bill, then fine. Your the manager and thats your job, just dont take what is already a high risk/high reward asset like a first round pick and use it to pick and choose based on your identity... Take the BPA, help him develop into just that and then if he doesn't meet your criteria move him for another of equal value that does.

[Flyerfan52]

my point is that neither were drafted based on the same criteria, they were simply the BPA when they stepped up to the podium, the identity of the Hawks wasn't established until after the core was put together and Chicago could see with there own eyes what they had in front of them.

I dont think you can build a core through the draft with the mindset that you want Big guys, skilled guys or what ever, you just try to grab the best player you can and then start building from there.

Actually the Hawks already had Keith & Seabrook in place to man the blue line.

They got lucky with "Captain Serious" @ 3 & won the lottery to move fron 2 to 1 the next year where Kane was the obvious BPA. I 2 fairly weak drafts they walked out with the best players. You can't plan for those cards to fall to you.

The identity was established when they added Toews to the defensemen. Kane was just so far ahead of the rest they had to take him even if he was a bit of a loose cannon. Either the others could keep him in check or he'd be valueable trade bait.

 

The smart thing they did is not fall in love with high draft picks like Cam Barker & traded him when he wasn't working out for them but still had value rather then hoping he'd become what he was drafted for. Sound familiar?

[cross16]

I don't totally agree with this.  Sure you draft BPA.  But that is a subjective rating heavily influenced by the type of team you are trying to create.  If you value certain characteristics you are going to rank that criteria higher.  If you don't you end up drafting a mish mash of players that can be difficult to fit a team around.  

Of course how you want to structure your team and approach the draft is going to determine who the BPA is I don't disagree with that not was I trying to suggest otherwise. All in saying is to try and duplicate a rebuild of any other team is impossible in my opinion because every draft is different and BPA is different too. You are going to value certain characteristics sure but they may not exactly translate to the on ices product. For example if the flames are going to play a big and physical game then Ritchie would make the most sense for them at 4 but I think we all agre that would not be a wise pick so they'll have to adjust some depending on who they end up taking.

[tmac70]

Bennett is the really the whole package and is the legit #1. I would like Bennett but believe that Eckblad is ours based on what I determine as needs for the 3 in front of us. EDM should take Eckblad but won't, they are very high on Drastiali.

I see the draft this way:

 

1) Bennett

2) Reinhart

3) Drastial

4) Eckblad

[Krule]

it wouldn't break my heart if Ekblad were to fall to 4

[Flyerfan52]

Bennett is the really the whole package and is the legit #1. I would like Bennett but believe that Eckblad is ours based on what I determine as needs for the 3 in front of us. EDM should take Eckblad but won't, they are very high on Drastiali.

I see the draft this way:

 

1) Bennett

2) Reinhart

3) Drastial

4) Eckblad

That's my guess too.

The order the 2 Sams are picked might change but Edm. won't be able to resist adding some skill with size. They also seem confident in their developing D & it's rare for a team to take D in the top 10 in sucessive years (especially if it's their own pick rather then 1 traded for).

[Flyerfan52]

All teams draft what they see as BPA but needs & philosophy color their assessment.

If the interview put the kid's thoughts as against the grain he drops on their personal list.

 

You pick the 1 closest to your ideal unless there is 1 who's talent is head & shoulders above his.

[MAC331]

Some players are born with skill while others develop them with each year of experience. I think Hartley did wonders to instill the heart and grit part this past season. We lack skill in certain areas, mainly the top two lines IMO. We witnessed this season some real potential in Monahan,Colburne, Backlund and Byron. The first two are keepers however Backlund and Byron could go. I wouldn't have minded keeping Backlund if they had not signed Stajan, both are 3rd line Centers in the big picture.

 

Outside of Baertschi we don't really have anyone as topline material in the farm for the next few years, this is why I think the new GM has to build a top #1 line by trade and FA signings in the offseason.

 

The Flames have the money and the need to do this for two reason. 1. Play progressively better hockey while building a winning culture again. 2. To back up the farm and allow the drafted talent sufficient time to develop so they can contribute as called upon.

Big, bad and skilled, say what you want about the LA's, San Jose's and Anaheim's of the world being big and strong, but they are also highly skilled teams that can skate through you or around you. Chicago is more on the skilled end but they have a ton of heart and never back down from a rough and tumble style of play...

You can look at any successful team in the league and find the same attributes spread out through there line up, heart, grit, skill and determination... There is no secret formula or model to building a winner in any sport, its about finding that core group of players that have what it takes to get the job done and surrounding them with the right players to compliment there skill set.

[MAC331]

Players will always come and go in professional sports. Iginla used up his usefulness here and deserved to move on. I see Monahan as the Yzerman type, lead by example qualities. He is a very fundamentally sound smart player. In this draft I would be happy with any of the top 5 to be honest about it. My prefrence is Sam Reinhart because of what I have seen he to is a fundamentally sound smart player and another Center we could use.

Ya, but Detroit was horrible for years before they started this run they're on. They had to build as well. You can use them as an example of how to build a team. The same goes for the other teams. The end result is what the rebuild will look like and it's what I want to see, that model of consistency. Boston went through a period of being bad too.

Of course I am not saying its an immediate thing, we are still in the beginning stage of the rebuild and need to grow leadership in the youth. I want players of the Sakics, Yzermans, Lidstroms, Messiers, Gilmours, etc, leadership qualities.

I want it so that we don't need to trade our best players like we did with Iginla and allow them to finish their careers here if that's what they want. If we continue to develop our players that doesn't have to happen.

[TrippinVdUb]

Looking at the coyotes, IMO Im betting Brad will be looking to build from the crease out, Phoenix has drafted some very solid dmen over the last couple of years and they always seemed to sign players that were competent in all 3 zones... I would expect Brad to carry that same philosophy here into Calgary.

[tmac70]

Really?? He has done noting but lose ground to everyone else in the minors. Sven is no where near proved his ability to be a 1st line guy. I will agree that we do require a 1st line and 2 more dman before we ever move in any form of a competitive team. 

 

I have commented many times IMO if we have 3 lines that are 2A,2B and 2C talent than we can be competitive. We have those types of players. We have NO ONE at present in our system that is close to 1st line, I still believe we won't even after this draft. We are going to have to trade to get a franchise guy, would be my thoughts. 

Some players are born with skill while others develop them with each year of experience. I think Hartley did wonders to instill the heart and grit part this past season. We lack skill in certain areas, mainly the top two lines IMO. We witnessed this season some real potential in Monahan,Colburne, Backlund and Byron. The first two are keepers however Backlund and Byron could go. I wouldn't have minded keeping Backlund if they had not signed Stajan, both are 3rd line Centers in the big picture.

 

Outside of Baertschi we don't really have anyone as topline material in the farm for the next few years, this is why I think the new GM has to build a top #1 line by trade and FA signings in the offseason.

 

The Flames have the money and the need to do this for two reason. 1. Play progressively better hockey while building a winning culture again. 2. To back up the farm and allow the drafted talent sufficient time to develop so they can contribute as called upon.

[The_People1]

Looking at the coyotes, IMO Im betting Brad will be looking to build from the crease out, Phoenix has drafted some very solid dmen over the last couple of years and they always seemed to sign players that were competent in all 3 zones... I would expect Brad to carry that same philosophy here into Calgary.

 

Not sure I agree because Bob Hartley, an offensive minded coach, is still the coach.  If Brad wants the Flames to be the Coyotes, then he would've started with the firing of Hartley.  Hartley is going to play an uptempo game that allows the blueliners like Brodie, Russell, Giordano, and Wideman to go on the offense.

 

Also, if we want players to compete in all 3 zones, then he should let Cammalleri go but he isn't.  There are contract extension talks.

[travel_dude]

Really?? He has done noting but lose ground to everyone else in the minors. Sven is no where near proved his ability to be a 1st line guy. I will agree that we do require a 1st line and 2 more dman before we ever move in any form of a competitive team. 

 

I have commented many times IMO if we have 3 lines that are 2A,2B and 2C talent than we can be competitive. We have those types of players. We have NO ONE at present in our system that is close to 1st line, I still believe we won't even after this draft. We are going to have to trade to get a franchise guy, would be my thoughts. 

What we have in our system is a lot of forwards in the 18-22yrs. range.  Some of those have potential to be top 6 (maybe top 3), but that remains to be seen.  Not all franchise players are 1st rounders.  Who has that potential?

- Poirier

- Johnny Hockey

- Granlund

- Monahan

- Agostino

- Janko

 

Remember, I said potential.  Those guy are less defensive than offensive, so if they develop properly, they could end up being 1st liners.  Some are years away from finding out.  Some could explode this coming season.  Or not. 

 

As far as a trade for one goes, franchise players do not become available in trade unless there is some kind of upheaval (Seguin) or a major UFA signing (Parise).  If you are willing to pay the price of an offer sheet, you might get someone close (O'Reilly).  Teams are likely to match any offer sheet for a franchise player though. 

[MAC331]

Baertschi was working on a number of things to improve his overall game which can cause other areas to slide. I'm not to worried but i would rather he continue to develop and become at least a 2nd line LW to start with when ready to come up.

Really?? He has done noting but lose ground to everyone else in the minors. Sven is no where near proved his ability to be a 1st line guy. I will agree that we do require a 1st line and 2 more dman before we ever move in any form of a competitive team. 

 

I have commented many times IMO if we have 3 lines that are 2A,2B and 2C talent than we can be competitive. We have those types of players. We have NO ONE at present in our system that is close to 1st line, I still believe we won't even after this draft. We are going to have to trade to get a franchise guy, would be my thoughts.