The Undrafted

[GM_3300]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

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. 

I don't care what anyone says because you need an element of balance with talent, skill, size and the level of compete overall. In the playoffs all levels of your game as individuals will intensify, some more than others. The team that rises to occasion in each series is usually the one that prevails as the winning team. Oh yeah and a HOT goaltender helps lots.

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

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

 

to add some context though:

 

Of those 8 players who are 6'3 or bigger only 1 forward was a top 9 forward during the playoffs. 

Their top 4 on D has size yes, but also includes Jbow (farthest thing from a physical player) and even though gio is not 6'3 I sure hope we don't need to debate how that doesn't matter.

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, GM_3300 said:

I don't care what anyone says because you need an element of balance with talent, skill, size and the level of compete overall. In the playoffs all levels of your game as individuals will intensify, some more than others. The team that rises to occasion in each series is usually the one that prevails as the winning team. Oh yeah and a HOT goaltender helps lots.

 

and to be clear i'm not advocating that the Flames don't need some toughness, and never have. I've long advocated that they do need more sprinkled throughout the lineup and I agree it is the mix that wins (among many other factors). You striving for balance, but at the end of the day I will always advocate your foundation need to be built upon skill and without that foundation you have no shot. I don't there is a champion in recent memory who disproves that theory. 

 

So to argue that the flames are missing the boat on their drafting and foundation, ya you lose me pretty quick there. Makes no sense. 

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

and to be clear i'm not advocating that the Flames don't need some toughness, and never have. I've long advocated that they do need more sprinkled throughout the lineup and I agree it is the mix that wins (among many other factors). You striving for balance, but at the end of the day I will always advocate your foundation need to be built upon skill and without that foundation you have no shot. I don't there is a champion in recent memory who disproves that theory. 

 

So to argue that the flames are missing the boat on their drafting and foundation, ya you lose me pretty quick there. Makes no sense. 

 

 

See, we are debating in circles. And I don’t mean the Flames need goons. I mean sandpaper and size. 

 

Sure we had Kris Chucko and Hunter Smith and others, like Kanzig. But you’re also pointing to a time when our scouting or drafting was never more terrible. With the GM didn’t listen or the scouts were really that bad...  

 

so is it that our scouts can now only see skill in small players? They can’t see it in guys 6’+? 

 

A knock on Vancouver is that they didn’t draft Gallagher. He was in their own city as a JR and didn’t draft him. He’s not huge but plays a big game. I think that’s some of the differences I am seeking. Skill and grit with motor. 

 

Or you get what we got, a team not ready to compete when pure skill doesn’t do the job. 

 

I would've loved another Hathaway on the team. It’s like you say, more balanced of different intangibles through the line up. 

 

I think we need Gaudreau and wonder if we’d manage without him. I am sure we would but he’s so integral to most of the team’s offence. But I am not saying get rid of all of our small skilled players. It’s more that the lineup doesn’t have the right balance to compete.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

49 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

I dont think anyone said that you need to build a "goon" team. Unless players like E. Kane, Bennett, Simmonds, B. Tanev, are considered goons now. Which teams would trip over each other to get their share of those type.  Hath led the team with 200 hits which are now gone. The next was Bennett and Chucky in the low 100's. The rest were less than 100, the team has got substantially softer than it was and I believe worse off for it.

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

so is it that our scouts can now only see skill in small players? They can’t see it in guys 6’+? 

 

A knock on Vancouver is that they didn’t draft Gallagher. He was in their own city as a JR and didn’t draft him. He’s not huge but plays a big game. I think that’s some of the differences I am seeking. Skill and grit with motor. 

 

 

 

well it's not exactly easy to find. to find guys that are big, skilled, gritty/sandpaper and check all the boxes you typically need to draft high and getting them outside the first round isn't common. So I don't think it's a question of bad scouting or bad procedure, it's your talking about a limited supply. I think you are touching on what I am too in that size is a bit of a silly argument, sandpaper and competitiveness is what you want to look for and the Flames have. I think this idea that they are only finding small/skilled players in the draft isn't accurate. Under Treliving so far:

 

2014: Sam Bennett. Not small, plays with sandpaper.

2015: Rasmus Andersson. Not really small and a competitor. Kylingington on the smaller side for sure as is Mangiapange. but again, your talking about a late 2nd round pick and a 5th rounder.

2016: Tkachuk. Don't need to explain that one. Dube (smaller but a fierce competitor) also grabbed Tuulola in later rounds. Fox is someone who can play with fire and then guys like Lindstrom and Phillips not as much but again your talking about late round picks.

2017: Valamaki. Not small. Ruzicka, Fisher and Joly were all not small, nor soft. 

2018: Pospisil is not small, nor soft.  The rest of that draft is on the smaller side yes but also very skilled and you have buzz around people taken in the 4th/5th rounder. 

2019: Pelletier may appear small but if you want sandpaper he has it. 

 

So depends on what you want. if you are ok with player who appear small but play the game with fire the Flames are absolutely drafting with that blueprint in mind. 

[bosn111]

I get what both sides are saying in this debate. I don’t disagree with either side in many ways. I agree that balance is important for a team, but the question is what balance exactly does a team need? A team with loads of speed and skill will undo a slower, physical, skill team quite easily. A lesser skilled, fast physical team can stop the fast skill team by keeping up with them but get beaten by the slow team whose skill makes the difference.

 

The biggest issue is that the Flames are not any of these teams. Based on drafting and players like Jonny, Mange, Czarnik etc, they are trying to be the fast, skilled team. But you add Monahan, Neal, Tkachuk, and the speed isn’t there. There is too much balance that a team style and identity is basically lost.

 

The Flames are not currently a run and gun team. They are not a Minnesota style shut down, 1 goal low scoring game team, they try to be more a possession team but haven’t been able to really pull it off as some players are not that style. Johnny, Brodie, Monahan, Benny, Hanifin, Kylington, Mange are likely more run and gun style. High speed, high offence. Backlund, Lindholm, Ryan, Tkachuk, Neal, Giordano, Hamonic, Andersson, Valimaki  are more possession type players. Jankowski, Hathaway, Stone are more your slow and low type players. Smith was more a run and gun type team goalie.

 

 I think the team needs to make a decision on what team they want to be and build the team specifically to be that way. If possession type with some speed is key, then guys like Stone, Jankowski, Monahan, Kylington and Brodie don’t fit the mould well and should move.

 

As for drafting size and skill mix, only Pelletier this draft was under 5’11. 3 of the 5 players picked were 6 ft and Nodler at 5’11 was actually listed as heaviest at 194 lbs. All the picks are said to have skill and compete level (see motors) which is what most fans are looking for.

 

As for prospects from earlier drafts, Ruzicka is 6’4, 209 with skill

Pospisil is 6’2 181

Tuulola is 6’3 227

Roman is 6’ 187

Valimaki is 6’2 212

Joly is 6’3 181

Fischer 6’1

Svenningsson 6’

Tkachuk 6’2

Mattson 6’4 191

Falkovsky 6’7 224

Parsons 6’1

 

Dube, Fox and Lindstrom 5’11.

 

Sure Pelletier, Koumontzis, Pettersen, Zavgorodniy and Phillips were under 5’11 but in the past 4 drafts, of 24 players picked only 8 players were under 6 ft, 8 players were 6’2 or taller. So the idea that the Flames only draft small is definitely a misconception. It seems that over the past 4 drafts, the Flames were very balanced with small, average and tall players.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

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.

 

True.........

 

buuuut....    the Iginla acquisition for instance.    It can be done.

 

Or...  Gaudreau.   Could we trade him right now and address the right side of the ice with some nearly ready prospects?   Just like the Iginla trade?

Oh yes we could.

 

the hardest part about that trade, let's all be totally honest..   is our man crush on him.   This is not a lack of willingness from other teams to acquire Gaudreau.

 

 

I still personally maintain:

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?  Yes

Should we do similar in our drafting in the future?  Yes.

Should we develop man crushes on all our prospects as if we were in a commonlaw relationship?    <---  I propose no.

 

Everyone seems to be avoiding the very obvious problem that we have too much of a man crush on some of our favourites to  let BPA work like it's supposed to.

 

 

In other news, I think I have a talent for taking things off topic, even of topics I created lol    My apologies for that...quite honestly I think this is better than the original topic

[sak22]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

Excellent point.  Lets remember there is a team that is plenty tough up north, Kassian, Lucic, and Nurse can goon it up like nobody.  Khaira, Larsson, Klefbom, Draisatl all big bodies, add in McDavid has a mean streak of his own.  Yet where have they been, argument can be made that they had more playoff wins in their "run" than we have the entire decade, and that was when they had another goon in Maroon, but they hit an ice cold Sharks team and lost to a sloppy playing Ducks team so it wasn't a playoff that most teams would hang their hat on.

 

Also Ryan Reaves was so valuable that he wasn't even used in game 7 OT.  Evander Kane had how many goals in the playoffs?

[travel_dude]

 

4 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

True.........

 

buuuut....    the Iginla acquisition for instance.    It can be done.

 

Or...  Gaudreau.   Could we trade him right now and address the right side of the ice with some nearly ready prospects?   Just like the Iginla trade?

Oh yes we could.

 

the hardest part about that trade, let's all be totally honest..   is our man crush on him.   This is not a lack of willingness from other teams to acquire Gaudreau.

 

 

I still personally maintain:

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?  Yes

Should we do similar in our drafting in the future?  Yes.

Should we develop man crushes on all our prospects as if we were in a commonlaw relationship?    <---  I propose no.

 

Everyone seems to be avoiding the very obvious problem that we have too much of a man crush on some of our favourites to  let BPA work like it's supposed to.

 

 

In other news, I think I have a talent for taking things off topic, even of topics I created lol    My apologies for that...quite honestly I think this is better than the original topic

 

There is a difference in a bromance and wanting to keep one of the best players in the league.

Trade him for Laine and we have a similar problem with defensiveness, and created a hole in the playmaker department.

Trade him for Schenn and we have a C that had a good post-season but might follow that up with a less productive regular season.

 

Unless we are getting a player as important to the offense as Gaudreau, why bother talking about it. 

[redfire11]

18 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I still personally maintain:

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?  Yes

Should we do similar in our drafting in the future?  Yes.

I think the Flames biggest problem was once they realized they had a top 10 league point player in Gaudreau they should have focused their draft on complementing HIM with size and skill picks. This season when JG had a good game we added 2 points. When he was shut down and immobilized we lost. We should have built a team around him. Some might say BT brought in Neal for that purpose but that ship sailed.

[GM_3300]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

and to be clear i'm not advocating that the Flames don't need some toughness, and never have. I've long advocated that they do need more sprinkled throughout the lineup and I agree it is the mix that wins (among many other factors). You striving for balance, but at the end of the day I will always advocate your foundation need to be built upon skill and without that foundation you have no shot. I don't there is a champion in recent memory who disproves that theory. 

 

So to argue that the flames are missing the boat on their drafting and foundation, ya you lose me pretty quick there. Makes no sense. 

Not sure I was arguing any such thing or that at all. I believe I mentioned about 4 qualities a team needs to have some balance throughout their line up.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

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. 

 

So real the question is, would STL have won without the dirtiness of Sundqvist, Barbashev, and Bortuzzo?  That's all that's being debated here.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

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

 

...Because we didn't have any.  

 

[cccsberg]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

See, we are debating in circles. And I don’t mean the Flames need goons. I mean sandpaper and size. 

 

Sure we had Kris Chucko and Hunter Smith and others, like Kanzig. But you’re also pointing to a time when our scouting or drafting was never more terrible. With the GM didn’t listen or the scouts were really that bad...  

 

so is it that our scouts can now only see skill in small players? They can’t see it in guys 6’+? 

 

A knock on Vancouver is that they didn’t draft Gallagher. He was in their own city as a JR and didn’t draft him. He’s not huge but plays a big game. I think that’s some of the differences I am seeking. Skill and grit with motor. 

 

Or you get what we got, a team not ready to compete when pure skill doesn’t do the job. 

 

I would've loved another Hathaway on the team. It’s like you say, more balanced of different intangibles through the line up. 

 

I think we need Gaudreau and wonder if we’d manage without him. I am sure we would but he’s so integral to most of the team’s offence. But I am not saying get rid of all of our small skilled players. It’s more that the lineup doesn’t have the right balance to compete.

Bennett-1RW

Brings speed, skill and grit.  BP needs to start here and not stop until Bennett proves he can not do the job.  

 

Bring in Quine/Pospisil-4LW

 

Neal/Lucic-2/4 RW

 

Dube-3RW w/Backlund

[The_People1]

42 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

True.........

 

buuuut....    the Iginla acquisition for instance.    It can be done.

 

Or...  Gaudreau.   Could we trade him right now and address the right side of the ice with some nearly ready prospects?   Just like the Iginla trade?

Oh yes we could.

 

the hardest part about that trade, let's all be totally honest..   is our man crush on him.   This is not a lack of willingness from other teams to acquire Gaudreau.

 

 

I still personally maintain:

Should we have drafted Gaudreau?  Yes

Should we do similar in our drafting in the future?  Yes.

Should we develop man crushes on all our prospects as if we were in a commonlaw relationship?    <---  I propose no.

 

Everyone seems to be avoiding the very obvious problem that we have too much of a man crush on some of our favourites to  let BPA work like it's supposed to.

 

 

In other news, I think I have a talent for taking things off topic, even of topics I created lol    My apologies for that...quite honestly I think this is better than the original topic

 

Gaudreau is a huge anomaly though you must admit.  A once in a decade fluke.

 

We might be able to trade Gaudreau straight up for Marner... but hard to believe any team will give up their #1 Center for a #1 LW.  Not that that's the point.  Just generally speaking, we need to put more value in RHS than LHS.  It's hard to move a LD for a RD, for example.  Teams have too many LDs and not enough RDs.  

 

Draft RHS and then you can trade "up" for a LHS anytime.

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

So real the question is, would STL have won without the dirtiness of Sundqvist, Barbashev, and Bortuzzo?  That's all that's being debated here.

 

Problem with that question is there is no answer. I could say no, but they did win so how could I say that?. Breaking it down to that simple of a level ignores that they got the best goaltending in the playoffs and were still lead by skill. Do I think a 4th line in Barbashev and a bottom pairing Dman in Bortuzzo made the difference over guys like Benington, Schwartz or ROR? No. 

 

I don't feel that is the only debate. the debate seems to be the Flames are not valuing in tangibles enough in their draft process and should focus more on things like RH shots, grit, sandpaper, size etc etc. If the debate is simply the flames need some more sandpaper in their bottom 6, that's pretty easy yes they do. But that's doesn't really seem to be the way the discussion has gone. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Gaudreau is a huge anomaly though you must admit.  A once in a decade fluke.

 

We might be able to trade Gaudreau straight up for Marner... but hard to believe any team will give up their #1 Center for a #1 LW.  Not that that's the point.  Just generally speaking, we need to put more value in RHS than LHS.  It's hard to move a LD for a RD, for example.  Teams have too many LDs and not enough RDs.  

 

Draft RHS and then you can trade "up" for a LHS anytime.

 

I completely agree, Gaudreau is an anomaly.

 

However, I would also suggest that anomalies like this should be expected in a good drafting/development system.

 

Every decent organization always has a few surprises like this at all times.   Gaudreau is against every odd, every rule, except one:

 

Every lottery has a winner.

 

The Theo Fleury lottery.  The Martin St Louis lottery.  The Kipper lottery.   The Giordano lottery.  All anomalies.  All unexpected.

But at a macro level we should know that good BPA systems will continue to supply these prospects.    Don't buy them too high, don't sell them too low.  This is where we've struggled.

 

If you continue to draft/sign the best available prospects, you Can expect to get more anomalies than a team which drafts to fit.    And those anomalies are typically worth more over time than the players who were drafted to fit.

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I completely agree, Gaudreau is an anomaly.

 

However, I would also suggest that anomalies like this should be expected in a good drafting/development system.

 

Every decent organization always has a few surprises like this at all times.   Gaudreau is against every odd, every rule, except one:

 

Every lottery has a winner.

 

The Theo Fleury lottery.  The Martin St Louis lottery.  The Kipper lottery.   The Giordano lottery.  All anomalies.  All unexpected.

But at a macro level we should know that good BPA systems will continue to supply these prospects.    Don't buy them too high, don't sell them too low.  This is where we've struggled.

 

If you continue to draft/sign the best available prospects, you Can expect to get more anomalies than a team which drafts to fit.    And those anomalies are typically worth more over time than the players who were drafted to fit.

 

BPA is very subjective though.

 

Like, was Jakob Pelletier (LHS LW, 5'-9" 160lbs) clearly BPA over Bobby Brink (RHS RW, 5'-8" 159 lbs)?  Why not draft the RHS??  I've never seen these two play but i imagine the difference is so close.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

...Because we didn't have any.  

 

 

Two sides of the coin.  COL had none, which was my point.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Problem with that question is there is no answer. I could say no, but they did win so how could I say that?. Breaking it down to that simple of a level ignores that they got the best goaltending in the playoffs and were still lead by skill. Do I think a 4th line in Barbashev and a bottom pairing Dman in Bortuzzo made the difference over guys like Benington, Schwartz or ROR? No. 

 

I don't feel that is the only debate. the debate seems to be the Flames are not valuing in tangibles enough in their draft process and should focus more on things like RH shots, grit, sandpaper, size etc etc. If the debate is simply the flames need some more sandpaper in their bottom 6, that's pretty easy yes they do. But that's doesn't really seem to be the way the discussion has gone. 

 

Obviously, grit alone doesn't win a Cup and doesn't replace elite goaltending, etc.  Just saying, it's right up there in terms of importance and should not be overlooked and cast off as a bonus item to have.  It's one of the main ingredients to every Cup team.  You have to have players willing to play the "bad guy".

 

Sundqvist injuring Grezllejskerskdnfsdfsmnd  caused the Bruins to tinker with their D pairings and utilization, for example.  Sundqvist was an unsung hero for the Blues despite not showing up on the score sheet.  Again, that alone doesn't win Cups but you cannot win a Cup without that.  

 

 

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Two sides of the coin.  COL had none, which was my point.

 

 

Zadorov is one of the most feared/dirtiest hitters in the NHL.  Him along with Cole made our forwards pay the price.  They made a difference.

[GM_3300]

5 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

See, we are debating in circles. And I don’t mean the Flames need goons. I mean sandpaper and size. 

 

Sure we had Kris Chucko and Hunter Smith and others, like Kanzig. But you’re also pointing to a time when our scouting or drafting was never more terrible. With the GM didn’t listen or the scouts were really that bad...  

 

so is it that our scouts can now only see skill in small players? They can’t see it in guys 6’+? 

 

A knock on Vancouver is that they didn’t draft Gallagher. He was in their own city as a JR and didn’t draft him. He’s not huge but plays a big game. I think that’s some of the differences I am seeking. Skill and grit with motor. 

 

Or you get what we got, a team not ready to compete when pure skill doesn’t do the job. 

 

I would've loved another Hathaway on the team. It’s like you say, more balanced of different intangibles through the line up. 

 

I think we need Gaudreau and wonder if we’d manage without him. I am sure we would but he’s so integral to most of the team’s offence. But I am not saying get rid of all of our small skilled players. It’s more that the lineup doesn’t have the right balance to compete.

I would say 6' at 200lbs is the start of having size, then it becomes a fine line past 6'5" of how your size plays in the NHL. This is not to say players under 6' not going to be as effective as the bigger players, just a matter of how they stand up to taking and dishing out the punishment.

[drop_da_mitts]

Sometimes the stars just align for a team. The blues got some valuable contributions from players on their elc's such as Thomas, Dunn, Blais, and especially Binnington. Good players on great contracts seem to make all the difference but even then you need some luck. 

 

I would continue building like the flames have in recent years by going for skill over grit. Even if that means signing a few long shot undrafted players who've shown they can be productive but may lack certain characteristics.

[cross16]

16 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Obviously, grit alone doesn't win a Cup and doesn't replace elite goaltending, etc.  Just saying, it's right up there in terms of importance and should not be overlooked and cast off as a bonus item to have.  It's one of the main ingredients to every Cup team.  You have to have players willing to play the "bad guy".

 

Sundqvist injuring Grezllejskerskdnfsdfsmnd  caused the Bruins to tinker with their D pairings and utilization, for example.  Sundqvist was an unsung hero for the Blues despite not showing up on the score sheet.  Again, that alone doesn't win Cups but you cannot win a Cup without that.  

 

 

 

think were all in agreement with many factors winning cups. Sure players like Sundqvist are unsung heros but my point is we are talking about a 3rd liner and not someone who is that difficult to find. So the idea that the Flames are not drafting for what wins cup, that's where I was disagreeing.

 

Sure, that grit is important but IMO it's not as important as skill and the foundation to the team is skill. I can see a day where a team wins a cup (and I actually think you can argue this has already happened) without having that guy. I don't think you will ever win a cup without most of your team being skilled, but yes you need to find those auxiliary pieces.