The Undrafted

[jjgallow]

Maybe this belongs in NHL talk but there is nothing Stopping this from being Flames related:

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/who-are-the-best-players-who-werent-selected-at-the-2019-nhl-draft

 

So, Are we aloud to do training camp invites with these kids or what?  And who catches your eye?  I'm curious.

 

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/376443/xavier-simoneau   Let's be honest, there are a lot of comparisons to be drawn between this kid and our first overall pick, Jakob Pelletier.

When evaluating smaller players, you do look at speed, yes.   But you also look at size.    there is a difference between a small player who can be bullied, and a tough kid with a low center of gravitiy.     Simoneau falls in the category of tough kid with low center of gravity.   So did Theo Fleury and Martin St Louis.    He weighs similar to them at that age too.  And vastly out-weighs our #1 pick, Pelletier.        From a muscle perspective, we're taking a much bigger risk with Pelletier.

 

The Russians are always interesting if they can be brought over.

 

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/418068/billy-constantinou   None of his problems are beyond development and all of his skillsets are that of a top NHL prospect.

 

Thoughts?

 

[redfire11]

Good job on the thread JJ.

The Xavier kid looks like a shot. I really like the " a tough kid with a low center of gravity"

[robrob74]

We definitely seem like we are trying to be the smallest team in the NHL. Might as well get some small players with low Center of gravity. 

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

We definitely seem like we are trying to be the smallest team in the NHL. Might as well get some small players with low Center of gravity. 

  

lol when on that note, I do also think your drafting (or training camp invite) doesn't necessarily follow your immediate needs on the team.

 

We could use some size.   But who knows what the situation will be when this year's draft class matures.  And there's always trades.

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, jjgallow said:

  

lol when on that note, I do also think your drafting (or training camp invite) doesn't necessarily follow your immediate needs on the team.

 

We could use some size.   But who knows what the situation will be when this year's draft class matures.  And there's always trades.

 

Drafting kids is a weird exercise.  They are not physically mature in any way.

Some kids are at an early age, but that is not the rule.

You should always draft for BPA, with the attributes you desire, whatever that is.

Considering that we've had one 1st rounder besides Valimaki in what 4 years?

 

I like our drafting.

I think each player we currently have under team control all have potential.

 

To answer your question, the undrafted can be signed to a NHL contract prior to their season starting.

 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Drafting kids is a weird exercise.  They are not physically mature in any way.

Some kids are at an early age, but that is not the rule.

You should always draft for BPA, with the attributes you desire, whatever that is.

Considering that we've had one 1st rounder besides Valimaki in what 4 years?

 

I like our drafting.

I think each player we currently have under team control all have potential.

 

To answer your question, the undrafted can be signed to a NHL contract prior to their season starting.

 

 

 

Thanks.   I think you've reminded me of that before and you'll probably have to remind me again

 

I actually like our drafting too.  I hated it for years.    But.. I hate to say it...it changed under Feaster.  What changed, I don't know.  But it may have simply been that Feaster knew what he didn't know.  He trusted the scouts instead of ignoring them.  And that was so successful I think it may have become policy.

 

All speculation.

 

I see few reasons why some of these kids shouldn't be considered at some level.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

Thanks.   I think you've reminded me of that before and you'll probably have to remind me again

 

I actually like our drafting too.  I hated it for years.    But.. I hate to say it...it changed under Feaster.  What changed, I don't know.  But it may have simply been that Feaster knew what he didn't know.  He trusted the scouts instead of ignoring them.  And that was so successful I think it may have become policy.

 

All speculation.

 

I see few reasons why some of these kids shouldn't be considered at some level.

 

Think it was Feaster allowing more input from Buttoin and the scouts, but also th guy VAN now calls their own.

Supposedly he like Gaudreau, but then again was the guy that liked Janko.

The problem I saw was passing on better guys (even at the time) and taking certain guys.

Wotherspoon, Seilov, MacDonald, Smith (argggg), etc.

I can't pin it on the scouts as the guy who let them win the argument.

Or an interim GM that wanted more beef.

 

I like that we picked up a few undrafted guys already.

Larby is a project, but a good one.

Gawdin could be something some day.

Philp is a wild card.

McKenna is at least an AHL player that might go the Hathaway route.

 

The draft picks like Poppy, the Arizona State guy, Pettersen, Zav, and Roman could be interesting.

Ruzicka is interesting, and if he can be motivated could be a steal.

I'm waiting to see what they use Tuulola for.

Sveningsson may be someting down the road, if he comes here.

[robrob74]

I wonder why college rules are so stringent on not allowing players to get paid. It should be looked at like it is a scholarship. A team should be allowed to donate enough as equals to at most what a scholarship could pay out. After all, they’re all vying for scholarship money anyway. I understand the pay to play concept, but in reality they kind of do as they do get their education paid for anyway. 

 

I could see getting drafted as similar to applying and competing for “scholarship” money. 

 

It could be a way teams get to keep their picks. Only pay (scholarship up to a max value - tuition and a liveable living allowance) for education after they’ve drafted them. 

 

Although, NHL GMs seem to find ways around the rules... just as some colleges do for recruitment. 

[The_People1]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I wonder why college rules are so stringent on not allowing players to get paid. It should be looked at like it is a scholarship. A team should be allowed to donate enough as equals to at most what a scholarship could pay out. After all, they’re all vying for scholarship money anyway. I understand the pay to play concept, but in reality they kind of do as they do get their education paid for anyway. 

 

I could see getting drafted as similar to applying and competing for “scholarship” money. 

 

It could be a way teams get to keep their picks. Only pay (scholarship up to a max value - tuition and a liveable living allowance) for education after they’ve drafted them. 

 

Although, NHL GMs seem to find ways around the rules... just as some colleges do for recruitment. 

 

I wonder the same thing with the Olympics.  Why can hockey players and basketball players participate when they are professionals while figure skaters and gymnasts must be amateurs?  

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

Thanks.   I think you've reminded me of that before and you'll probably have to remind me again

 

I actually like our drafting too.  I hated it for years.    But.. I hate to say it...it changed under Feaster.  What changed, I don't know.  But it may have simply been that Feaster knew what he didn't know.  He trusted the scouts instead of ignoring them.  And that was so successful I think it may have become policy.

 

All speculation.

 

I see few reasons why some of these kids shouldn't be considered at some level.

 

The NHL keeps saying they want to allow skill and scoring to prevail but at the same time, the referees put their whistles away during the playoffs.  So it's two different leagues.  Go small and skilled only to win the regular season.  Go big and physical to win Cups.

 

So basically, we aren't drafting to win Cups.  This is troubling.

[cross16]

48 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I wonder why college rules are so stringent on not allowing players to get paid.

 

This is why....

 

The NCAA brings in $1 billion a year — here's why it refuses to pay its college athletes

https://www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-college-athletes-march-madness-basketball-football-sports-not-paid-2019-3

 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The NHL keeps saying they want to allow skill and scoring to prevail but at the same time, the referees put their whistles away during the playoffs.  So it's two different leagues.  Go small and skilled only to win the regular season.  Go big and physical to win Cups.

 

So basically, we aren't drafting to win Cups.  This is troubling.

 

I agree. But people seem to think that draft BPA and they are developing and get the value for them after they’re developed. If they’re good then essentially they’re an asset. But if they’re small and flop then you’re basically still drafting a poor choice. Or you end up with 2/3 of each line below 6’ tall with have to sign Peluso’s and such to protect them. We’ve seen that they’re not really a deterrent.

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I agree. But people seem to think that draft BPA and they are developing and get the value for them after they’re developed. If they’re good then essentially they’re an asset. But if they’re small and flop then you’re basically still drafting a poor choice. Or you end up with 2/3 of each line below 6’ tall with have to sign Peluso’s and such to protect them. We’ve seen that they’re not really a deterrent.

 

The other thing is, the value of a LHS LW is always lower than a RHS RD or a C, for example.  There's so many LHS LW that even if they turn out okay, they are worth less in a trade than a RHS RD.  RHS, if you don't draft them yourself then nobody is going to trade you one for "fair value".  Like if it came down to it, i would trade Valimaki before Andersson, not because Andersson is going to be a better player (i think Valimaki will be) but it's because a LHS LD is easier to replace via trade/UFA.  

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

The other thing is, the value of a LHS LW is always lower than a RHS RD or a C, for example.  There's so many LHS LW that even if they turn out okay, they are worth less in a trade than a RHS RD.  RHS, if you don't draft them yourself then nobody is going to trade you one for "fair value".  Like if it came down to it, i would trade Valimaki before Andersson, not because Andersson is going to be a better player (i think Valimaki will be) but it's because a LHS LD is easier to replace via trade/UFA.  

 

We seem to draft a lot of LHS players. I get that there are only so many out there, but I feel that some teams seem to hit on players regardless of where they draft. 

 

When so many BPA are LHS, there’s bound to be a very good RHS something available.

[cccsberg]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The NHL keeps saying they want to allow skill and scoring to prevail but at the same time, the referees put their whistles away during the playoffs.  So it's two different leagues.  Go small and skilled only to win the regular season.  Go big and physical to win Cups.

 

So basically, we aren't drafting to win Cups.  This is troubling.

What is troubling is the NHL allowing this travesty to continue on.  If you try to build just a playoff team, you'll end up like Edmonton with a bunch of slow-footed physical guys and goons who can't win enough to even get to the playoffs.  Fans should demand consistency, one way of another.

[jjgallow]

 

A couple comments:

 

On playoff goon hockey:  Yes, the rules change a bit.   But, let's be honest, it's mostly the intensity which we couldn't physically handle, not the rules. 

                                         Case in point, it wasn't goons that put 50+ shots past us a night.

                                         It was hockey that put the shots past us.  It was our lack of defence that allowed it.

                                         And defence is actually still part of hockey.

 

If you look at the way hockey has evolved, even playoff hockey has never been better.   But for us to think we can make it with the players we had, would not have Ever worked.

 

 

So:  Drafting... BPA.

 

Simple.  Case. In Point.

 

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?

 

-Yes.   And it's not a discussion.  We all agree on that.

 

Should we have kept him?

 

-No.  Our team wasn't physical enough for that.  It's not just his size, it's his physical makeup.     With the team we had, we should have traded him.  Still should.

 

 

So, here we're debating whether to draft highly skilled NHL talents.  This should not be a debate, case in point Gaudreau.  Do the BPA.  Get paid.

 

What IS apparently a debate, is what to do after.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   I am a HUGE prospect fan.   But I'd trade them all in a second to put a stanley cup  winner together.    

 

Stop falling in love with the draft picks kids, and go BPA.  It's a draft, not a wedding.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

A couple comments:

 

On playoff goon hockey:  Yes, the rules change a bit.   But, let's be honest, it's mostly the intensity which we couldn't physically handle, not the rules. 

                                         Case in point, it wasn't goons that put 50+ shots past us a night.

                                         It was hockey that put the shots past us.  It was our lack of defence that allowed it.

                                         And defence is actually still part of hockey.

 

If you look at the way hockey has evolved, even playoff hockey has never been better.   But for us to think we can make it with the players we had, would not have Ever worked.

 

 

So:  Drafting... BPA.

 

Simple.  Case. In Point.

 

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?

 

-Yes.   And it's not a discussion.  We all agree on that.

 

Should we have kept him?

 

-No.  Our team wasn't physical enough for that.  It's not just his size, it's his physical makeup.     With the team we had, we should have traded him.  Still should.

 

 

So, here we're debating whether to draft highly skilled NHL talents.  This should not be a debate, case in point Gaudreau.  Do the BPA.  Get paid.

 

What IS apparently a debate, is what to do after.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   I am a HUGE prospect fan.   But I'd trade them all in a second to put a stanley cup  winner together.    

 

Stop falling in love with the draft picks kids, and go BPA.  It's a draft, not a wedding.

 

The problem I have is, there aren’t enough trades to make up for the deficiencies. 

 

Ok, you trade Gaudreau for a huge haul, but how often does a Gaudreau happen? We aren’t drafting him every year. And how many Gaudreau’s are there every year in every draft? 

 

Yes you draft him, but what I am seeing is a lot of players drafted or signed with that physique. 2/3 of the forward group are made up of smallish “skilled” players with “supposed” high hockey IQ but forget how to play from time to time. 

 

Its tough to pinpoint but I feel like it’s also a culture that has the players not play a full game.

 

i dunno. I think it’s easy to draft players but harder to develop them and it’s actually just as hard to trade for players these days. Teams aren’t always willing to give up nhl capable assets as freely as they used to. 

 

We drafted Baerstchi in the first round, traded for a 2nd. How’s that for asset management? Bad example because that ended up Andersson, who I bet the Nucks would much prefer over Baertschi, but didn’t know that before. But trading a 1st for a 2nd isn’t good business. 

 

Plus how often we trade high picks is going to make it harder to hit on later round picks. We’ve been doing decently at it, but I would prefer the higher percentage possibility of a prospect making it that the players picked in the 1st round offers. 

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

A couple comments:

 

On playoff goon hockey:  Yes, the rules change a bit.   But, let's be honest, it's mostly the intensity which we couldn't physically handle, not the rules. 

                                         Case in point, it wasn't goons that put 50+ shots past us a night.

                                         It was hockey that put the shots past us.  It was our lack of defence that allowed it.

                                         And defence is actually still part of hockey.

 

If you look at the way hockey has evolved, even playoff hockey has never been better.   But for us to think we can make it with the players we had, would not have Ever worked.

 

I know what you mean though because with the effort we gave in the first round, we would've lost to Ottawa Senators in a 7 game series.  It didn't matter.  That said, i think you're missing one point of having "goons" and that is, it bruises the other team's best players so they are not as effective.  Goons don't score or anything but they help intimidate over the stretch of a 7-game series.  Good goons know exactly where the referee's line is and they straddle it and push it to the limits.

[The_People1]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

The problem I have is, there aren’t enough trades to make up for the deficiencies. 

 

100%. 

 

Literally, the position of strength for 27 teams in the NHL is LW and LD.  You can keep drafting them thinking you can trade them but the need from other teams is so small.  At some point we have to realize that if we don't draft RHS, then we won't have any.

[cccsberg]

12 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

A couple comments:

 

On playoff goon hockey:  Yes, the rules change a bit.   But, let's be honest, it's mostly the intensity which we couldn't physically handle, not the rules. 

                                         Case in point, it wasn't goons that put 50+ shots past us a night.

                                         It was hockey that put the shots past us.  It was our lack of defence that allowed it.

                                         And defence is actually still part of hockey.

 

If you look at the way hockey has evolved, even playoff hockey has never been better.   But for us to think we can make it with the players we had, would not have Ever worked.

 

 

So:  Drafting... BPA.

 

Simple.  Case. In Point.

 

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?

 

-Yes.   And it's not a discussion.  We all agree on that.

 

Should we have kept him?

 

-No.  Our team wasn't physical enough for that.  It's not just his size, it's his physical makeup.     With the team we had, we should have traded him.  Still should.

 

 

So, here we're debating whether to draft highly skilled NHL talents.  This should not be a debate, case in point Gaudreau.  Do the BPA.  Get paid.

 

What IS apparently a debate, is what to do after.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   I am a HUGE prospect fan.   But I'd trade them all in a second to put a stanley cup  winner together.   

 

Stop falling in love with the draft picks kids, and go BPA.  It's a draft, not a wedding.

Intensity is upped, TRUE.  However, brutal cross checks, stick work and numerous other, "normal" penalties are ignored and accepted as "toughness" just because its the playoffs.  The refs may not want to inject themselves into the play, but by refusing to make the proper calls that is exactly what they are doing.  This really affected the Flames, especially Gaudreau, though I agree it wasn't the be all reason why we lost.  We got outplayed and they got the bounces.  That's all that matters in a close series.

[cccsberg]

26 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I know what you mean though because with the effort we gave in the first round, we would've lost to Ottawa Senators in a 7 game series.  It didn't matter.  That said, i think you're missing one point of having "goons" and that is, it bruises the other team's best players so they are not as effective.  Goons don't score or anything but they help intimidate over the stretch of a 7-game series.  Good goons know exactly where the referee's line is and they straddle it and push it to the limits.

Agree.  Why do you think St Louis won the Cup?  Decimated both the Sharks, then Dallas, then Boston and wrapped up long series against depleted forces.  They built their team knowing playoff rules and it finally won.  If the refs called the playoffs the same as regular season, intensity or no, St Louis never would have made it to the Conference Finals.  

 

The problem is it is next to impossible to build both a skilled regular season team that suddenly becomes tough and physical for playoffs.  The NHL, I'm sure loves this because it allows so-called "underdogs" to rise up and win, seemingly out of nowhere, but largely because they pull the carpet out from under the league's truly elite teams by changing the rules in a major, fundamental way.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

7 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Intensity is upped, TRUE.  However, brutal cross checks, stick work and numerous other, "normal" penalties are ignored and accepted as "toughness" just because its the playoffs.  The refs may not want to inject themselves into the play, but by refusing to make the proper calls that is exactly what they are doing.  This really affected the Flames, especially Gaudreau, though I agree it wasn't the be all reason why we lost.  We got outplayed and they got the bounces.  That's all that matters in a close series.

Considering how many other missed/blown calls happened throughout the entire playoffs, the Flames were affected minimally.  Personally I would say it barely factored into the outcome. As said above bad calls dont account for 50+ shots against.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

5 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Agree.  Why do you think St Louis won the Cup?  Decimated both the Sharks, then Dallas, then Boston and wrapped up long series against depleted forces.  They built their team knowing playoff rules and it finally won.  If the refs called the playoffs the same as regular season, intensity or no, St Louis never would have made it to the Conference Finals.  

 

The problem is it is next to impossible to build both a skilled regular season team that suddenly becomes tough and physical for playoffs.  The NHL, I'm sure loves this because it allows so-called "underdogs" to rise up and win, seemingly out of nowhere, but largely because they pull the carpet out from under the league's truly elite teams by changing the rules in a major, fundamental way.

Bull. St.Lou was the hottest team from the new year on riding a hot goalie and making minimal roster moves at the deadline.  They went from the bottom to a playoff spot and then were able to play playoff hockey with the same roster.

 

Just to throw some fuel on the  small player argument......

 

Blues roster players over 6'3" - 8

                              under 6'0" - 2

Flames                            > 6'3" - 4

                                       < 6'0" - 5

[cross16]

Biggest reason why I hate the idea of favoring intangibles over skill in the draft process is if it doesn't work you have a bust. That's how you wind up with Hunter Smith in the 2nd round, Kris Chucko and Matt Pelech in the first and years later nothing to show for any of them. At least with Baertschi you were able to turn him into another asset.

 

I also love how in all this talk about size and how the blues were so physical we forget that 3 of their top 5 players in the playoffs were not very big, nor very physical in Schwartz, Tarasenko and Perron. I'm also being generous and not including ROR in that, who isn't very big nor does he play overly big. Think it's a myth that the Blues won the cup on the backs of big physical hockey. 

[travel_dude]

53 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I know what you mean though because with the effort we gave in the first round, we would've lost to Ottawa Senators in a 7 game series.  It didn't matter.  That said, i think you're missing one point of having "goons" and that is, it bruises the other team's best players so they are not as effective.  Goons don't score or anything but they help intimidate over the stretch of a 7-game series.  Good goons know exactly where the referee's line is and they straddle it and push it to the limits.

 

And what impact did goons have in our series.  None.

The great debate (every year) is whether to build a skill team or a goon-ish team.

The discussion is always the same, and the justification is goonery by Reaves that supposdly brought Vegas to the cup finals.

Or that STL was a goon team.

 

The difference between game 1, game 52 and game 82 versus the playoffs is intensity.

Every playoff game is like an elimination game.

You have to be ready to sacrifice to win that game.

We lost for a variety of reasons, not because we didn't have goons.

Build a goon team and you sign guys like Lucic.