Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis

[cross16]

10 hours ago, rickross said:

As high as I am on Valamaki should the Flames have opted to draft a high skill forward over a D man? 

 

Depends on your philosophy. General consensus is that a top pairing dman would trump a skilled forward so IMO no they should have stuck with Valamaki. I also think people overrate how "deep" the Flames are on the blueline. Guys like Andersson and Kylington are still very much questions marks, especially Kylington, and Fox is a ways away. Picking a high end Dman makes a ton of sense given their current blue line is older than their forward crop. 

 

Having said that the player I think they may regret passing on is Eeli Tolvanen. IMO he is the only forward I would have had on the same level as Valamaki and he's already tearing up the KHL as well. Nashville got a tremendous steal here. 

[rickross]

I think we F'd up by acquiring Hamonic for what could have been Dobson! Dobson looks like a future stud!

[conundrumed]

19 minutes ago, rickross said:

I think we F'd up by acquiring Hamonic for what could have been Dobson! Dobson looks like a future stud!

Hindsight is 20/20. We weren't supposed to be a lottery team.

But again, our GM really over-rated our fwd ranks and did nothing to address it no matter how obvious it became.

A year of struggles from Backlund and Frolik is really all it took for the wheels to come off, and that's not on them.

That's more a GM having a rosy outlook that career years will come from everyone.

BT says himself, "first and foremost, it's on me".

He is 100% correct. He had no solutions when things were falling apart.

When Plan A doesn't work, there's 25 more letters. I struggle to see that he even used a second letter.

I'm all for patience, but not when the writing is on the wall.

[robrob74]

57 minutes ago, rickross said:

I think we F'd up by acquiring Hamonic for what could have been Dobson! Dobson looks like a future stud!

 Yup! 

 

I was so pissed at the deal when we did it. 

When Hamonic originally wanted to be traded I wanted him. But then I began to realize the players left on the board, like missing out on a Barzal, and that we are building this team, those picks are paramount. 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 Yup! 

 

I was so pissed at the deal when we did it. 

When Hamonic originally wanted to be traded I wanted him. But then I began to realize the players left on the board, like missing out on a Barzal, and that we are building this team, those picks are paramount. 

 

I was and am still okay with the trade for Dougie.  Take away the fact that we traded him this year, and this was a scoop.  Finding a top 2 D-man for some picks?  Pretty rare in the NHL unless you draft and develop a top 1st rounder.  We missed on Barzal, but BOS missed 3 times the same draft.  They missed on Boeser.  And we still have a guy like Hanifin who could become a top 2 D-man.

 

The Hamonic trade is what it is.  Perhaps overrated.  Perhaps under-performed.  Perhaps misused by a bad coach.  I'm more annoyed that we were a playoff team for part of the season and ended up falling on our face to end the season.  Instead of a 15-31 pick, it was a 12th.  And while the shiny new toys look good in their age group competition, very few are can't miss.  How many Strome's does it take to have one actually perform in the NHL.  And what happened to NYI?  A team that had JT fell off the map to the point of not even being able to keep him.  Maybe Hamonic had a bigger part of their success that we don't see. 

[sak22]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 Yup! 

 

I was so pissed at the deal when we did it. 

When Hamonic originally wanted to be traded I wanted him. But then I began to realize the players left on the board, like missing out on a Barzal, and that we are building this team, those picks are paramount. 

I just want to throw this out on Barzal.  Yes he was available, I feel strongly we would have gone a different route had we kept the pick.  I believe we entered that draft focused on improving the back end, we used 5 picks we had and gained a defenseman that was 22 and could play big minutes and a couple promising prospects.  I'd say that one draft gave us a nice shift on the blue line. Remember at the time our top prospects were Wotherspoon, Kulak, Sieloff, Culkin, Kanzig and Gilmour.  And our NHL defence was Gio (who at the time seemed injury prone), Brodie, Engelland, Smid, and the Bob Hartley Superstar pairing of Russell and Wide-dog.  Up front we were still very high on Bennett, and had a lot more promising prospects that I believe would have made the team go away from Barzal.  I don't like trading away picks either, but I don't like the assumption that we would have picked that player either because he was available, I can live with we didn't draft Barzal but received Hamilton, vs. we passed on Brayden Point to draft Hunter Smith.  Also not saying this would happen again, but remember Brandon Gormley who the Coyotes drafted with the 1st we traded for Jokinen, I heard "we could have had Gormley" way too many times in a 2 year period, and it only went away once he became a bust.  Not saying Dobson will follow suit, but people also loved Gormley, so let this play out a little.

[MAC331]

8 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I just want to throw this out on Barzal.  Yes he was available, I feel strongly we would have gone a different route had we kept the pick.  I believe we entered that draft focused on improving the back end, we used 5 picks we had and gained a defenseman that was 22 and could play big minutes and a couple promising prospects.  I'd say that one draft gave us a nice shift on the blue line. Remember at the time our top prospects were Wotherspoon, Kulak, Sieloff, Culkin, Kanzig and Gilmour.  And our NHL defence was Gio (who at the time seemed injury prone), Brodie, Engelland, Smid, and the Bob Hartley Superstar pairing of Russell and Wide-dog.  Up front we were still very high on Bennett, and had a lot more promising prospects that I believe would have made the team go away from Barzal.  I don't like trading away picks either, but I don't like the assumption that we would have picked that player either because he was available, I can live with we didn't draft Barzal but received Hamilton, vs. we passed on Brayden Point to draft Hunter Smith.  Also not saying this would happen again, but remember Brandon Gormley who the Coyotes drafted with the 1st we traded for Jokinen, I heard "we could have had Gormley" way too many times in a 2 year period, and it only went away once he became a bust.  Not saying Dobson will follow suit, but people also loved Gormley, so let this play out a little.

It does nothing to look backwards. We have had some strong drafts over the past 5 years as well and our depth currently is very good. We could use some RSD soon but our forwards are now well stocked for the immediate. Where would we be coming into this coming season without Hamonic ? Using more assets to fill the spot so I say when it comes to trades GM's have to take advantage of deemed opportunities as the phone rings.

[The_People1]

The one that still gets me to this day is Mason MacDonald over Thatcher Demko.  Why?  What were we thinking?  Demko was #1 ranked goalie going into the draft.

[rickross]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

The one that still gets me to this day is Mason MacDonald over Thatcher Demko.  Why?  What were we thinking?  Demko was #1 ranked goalie going into the draft.

Peeps...I never understood the pick either. I honestly think this was more Brad Pascall's pick, he was fresh out of Hockey Canada and just signed as Asst GM...he obviously had a good pulse on prospects and I'm sure his input weighed in, but MacDonakd over Demko?...don't forget taking Wotherspoon over Kucherov! 

[conundrumed]

8 hours ago, sak22 said:

I just want to throw this out on Barzal.  Yes he was available, I feel strongly we would have gone a different route had we kept the pick.  I believe we entered that draft focused on improving the back end, we used 5 picks we had and gained a defenseman that was 22 and could play big minutes and a couple promising prospects.  I'd say that one draft gave us a nice shift on the blue line. Remember at the time our top prospects were Wotherspoon, Kulak, Sieloff, Culkin, Kanzig and Gilmour.  And our NHL defence was Gio (who at the time seemed injury prone), Brodie, Engelland, Smid, and the Bob Hartley Superstar pairing of Russell and Wide-dog.  Up front we were still very high on Bennett, and had a lot more promising prospects that I believe would have made the team go away from Barzal.  I don't like trading away picks either, but I don't like the assumption that we would have picked that player either because he was available, I can live with we didn't draft Barzal but received Hamilton, vs. we passed on Brayden Point to draft Hunter Smith.  Also not saying this would happen again, but remember Brandon Gormley who the Coyotes drafted with the 1st we traded for Jokinen, I heard "we could have had Gormley" way too many times in a 2 year period, and it only went away once he became a bust.  Not saying Dobson will follow suit, but people also loved Gormley, so let this play out a little.

Now Hamilton having value has returned Hanafin and Lindholm.

So that's worth watching, no saying they don't make us that much better.

Having traded Hamilton, it is yet to be decided.

If I say it was for Barzal, Forsbacka-Karlsson and Dunn that would hurt my feelings.

But as you say, the likelihood that's how it would play out isn't realistic.

[420since1974]

During Treliving's tenure, I feel that the Flame's drafting has improved a fair bit.

Whether that's due to BT, the scouts improving, or a new draft philosophy, it seems to be working.

[DirtyDeeds]

1 hour ago, 420since1974 said:

During Treliving's tenure, I feel that the Flame's drafting has improved a fair bit.

Whether that's due to BT, the scouts improving, or a new draft philosophy, it seems to be working.

Drafting started to improve tail end of Feasters tenure. Money Janks and JH all from Feaster and his gang.

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Drafting started to improve tail end of Feasters tenure. Money Janks and JH all from Feaster and his gang.

 

I don;t think the scouts changed that much between regimes, but the process of nailing down "the list" changed.  

The 2013 draft has one full time NHL player and one fringe (Gilmour) out of 8 picks.  Klimchuk is still a prospect at this point.

I do think that Burke had his fingerprints all over the 2013 (later picks) and 2014 drafts.

It didn;t seem like the 2014 picks were well thought out.  MacDonald and Smith?  Montour, Dvorak, Point, Arvidsson all left on the board.

[DirtyDeeds]

I am not fond of Ryan Pike as a writer because he uses only facts that suit his points. He tried to show how the Flames Scouting has changed most recently from past few GM's.

There are gaps and scouts he does not list however but it does give you the basic idea. For example his memory of Dutter is failing and lists no scouts and just arough idea on Dutters scouting staff and drafts.

 

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/02/09/recent-general-managers-have-revamped-flames-scouting/

[travel_dude]

34 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I am not fond of Ryan Pike as a writer because he uses only facts that suit his points. He tried to show how the Flames Scouting has changed most recently from past few GM's.

There are gaps and scouts he does not list however but it does give you the basic idea. For example his memory of Dutter is failing and lists no scouts and just arough idea on Dutters scouting staff and drafts.

 

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/02/09/recent-general-managers-have-revamped-flames-scouting/

 

I think his conclusions are flawed at times.  I only pay attention to some of his observations and some stats he uses, but you are correct.  The other guy Kent Wilson (now at the Hockey Writers) has a more balanced position.  Really FN is just another blogger spot that pumps up the current rosters and mgmt.  The comments are asinine at times.

Haynes has a better perspective.

[Thebrewcrew]

The Athletic has us pegged as having the 29th ranked system in the league. Personally I thought we'd be in the 20-25 range. Anyway I think we have some quantity but not too sure if we have quality

 

I think Valimaki will for sure be an impactful player. 

 

Dube, Andersson, Kylington, Foo, Mangiapane, Klimchuk all have upside to play but I'm not sure how big the upside is with any of them

[cross16]

50 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The Athletic has us pegged as having the 29th ranked system in the league. Personally I thought we'd be in the 20-25 range. Anyway I think we have some quantity but not too sure if we have quality

 

I think Valimaki will for sure be an impactful player. 

 

Dube, Andersson, Kylington, Foo, Mangiapane, Klimchuk all have upside to play but I'm not sure how big the upside is with any of them

 

And a big reason they are so low is Pronman, who does those rankings, is lower on Valamaki than most. he values the flashy, more dynamic prospect approach so he has Valamaki graded a fair bit lower than most. Case in point in his view Kylington is the Flames number 1 prospect where most have Valamaki as one of the top prospect in the entire league so I take his rankings with a grain of salt as you should any rankings to be honest.

 

That being said Flames have a very young top 6 and have not drafted in the first round twice in the last 4 drafts so this ranking is not a total shock but I also think is a little hard. I would say the Flames should be closer to the 20 ranking. 

[420since1974]

I don't see any potential all-stars in the list above, but I do see some potentially serviceable NHL players.

These are my expectations on the optimistic side.

 

Valamaki - Top 4 D

Andersson - Top 4 D

Kylington - Bottom 4 D

Dube - Middle 6  centre/winger.

Foo - Middle 6 winger.

Mangiapane - Bottom 6 winger

Klimchuk - Bottom 6 winger

 

[conundrumed]

9 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

I don't see any potential all-stars in the list above, but I do see some potentially serviceable NHL players.

These are my expectations on the optimistic side.

 

Valamaki - Top 4 D

Andersson - Top 4 D

Kylington - Bottom 4 D

Dube - Middle 6  centre/winger.

Foo - Middle 6 winger.

Mangiapane - Bottom 6 winger

Klimchuk - Bottom 6 winger

 

Excellent job on the bolded

Every player should be ranked by how many ems after H.

Hmmm.

Makes us fans.

[420since1974]

New computer, new OS, haven't figured out all of the changes yet.

I'm seeing everything in bold and in italics.

I'm wanting to post in neither.

[Cowtownguy]

7 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

New computer, new OS, haven't figured out all of the changes yet.

I'm seeing everything in bold and in italics.

I'm wanting to post in neither.

wHaT kind of OS are you uSing?

[Cowtownguy]

56 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

I don't see any potential all-stars in the list above, but I do see some potentially serviceable NHL players.

These are my expectations on the optimistic side.

 

Valamaki - Top 4 D

Andersson - Top 4 D

Kylington - Bottom 4 D

Dube - Middle 6  centre/winger.

Foo - Middle 6 winger.

Mangiapane - Bottom 6 winger

Klimchuk - Bottom 6 winger

 

I feel confident about Valamaki. I would be surprised if he does not pan out as a top 4. I think Andersson will make it. I am just not sure if he is top 4. Foo should make the team if only because he is a RS and has speed/moves. I do not know about the others. The guy who really bakes my noodle is Dube. I could see him projecting as a middle forward and going either way.

[DirtyDeeds]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

And a big reason they are so low is Pronman, who does those rankings, is lower on Valamaki than most. he values the flashy, more dynamic prospect approach so he has Valamaki graded a fair bit lower than most. Case in point in his view Kylington is the Flames number 1 prospect where most have Valamaki as one of the top prospect in the entire league so I take his rankings with a grain of salt as you should any rankings to be honest.

 

That being said Flames have a very young top 6 and have not drafted in the first round twice in the last 4 drafts so this ranking is not a total shock but I also think is a little hard. I would say the Flames should be closer to the 20 ranking. 

Also most of our top prospects have graduated, at least the ones who were destined for NHL. Only a few of our most promising recent picks are still on the farm.

[Thebrewcrew]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

And a big reason they are so low is Pronman, who does those rankings, is lower on Valamaki than most. he values the flashy, more dynamic prospect approach so he has Valamaki graded a fair bit lower than most. Case in point in his view Kylington is the Flames number 1 prospect where most have Valamaki as one of the top prospect in the entire league so I take his rankings with a grain of salt as you should any rankings to be honest.

 

That being said Flames have a very young top 6 and have not drafted in the first round twice in the last 4 drafts so this ranking is not a total shock but I also think is a little hard. I would say the Flames should be closer to the 20 ranking. 

I agree, not trying to overvalue our farm but it is certainly better than Pittsburgh, they haven’t had a first in years 

[cross16]

13 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

I don't see any potential all-stars in the list above, but I do see some potentially serviceable NHL players.

These are my expectations on the optimistic side.

 

Valamaki - Top 4 D

Andersson - Top 4 D

Kylington - Bottom 4 D

Dube - Middle 6  centre/winger.

Foo - Middle 6 winger.

Mangiapane - Bottom 6 winger

Klimchuk - Bottom 6 winger

 

 

IMO Valamaki will be an All-Star. 

 

10 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I agree, not trying to overvalue our farm but it is certainly better than Pittsburgh, they haven’t had a first in years 

 

He also had Tampa as 30th or 31st I believe, which is really interested because Tampa has a lot of depth in their prospect pool.

 

It's fine, scouting ranks always should be different and I appreciate the different perspective I just don't believe it's fair to penalize a franchise because they have some depth but not high end prospects. You typically only get high end prospects by drafting high. So Pronman's rankings are always going to favor the rebuilding teams.